'Breathtaking.Badiou...announcesanewepochinphilosophy.

'
5LAvCJ Z|ZEK

PlBID LBOIOU |UHOCI BDO |UHOCIS
Number and Mumbers
A|ain badiou
Trans|ated Dy HoDin Mackay
pOIty
IISt QuDlI8h0U IH I0HCh 8S Le Nombre cI |es ttombres lUItIOH8 Uu b0uIl
1V7.
hIS ng!ISh 0UItIOH ' 1O!Itj 1I08S, Z
10QIIHt0U IH Z
1OlItj 1I0SS
O IIUg0 btI00t
\8DDIIUg0 \Z 1 l1 l.
1OlItj 1t0SS
b NuIH btI00t
8lU0H 1 Z1 lb1
1!! IIghtS I0SCIV0U. lXC0Qt !OI th0 quOt8tIOH O! ShOIt Q88Sug0S !OI th0 QuIQO80
O! CIItICI8D uHU I0VI0V HO Q8It O! thIS QuD!iC8tiOH m8j D0 t0QIOUuC0U StOI0U
IH 8 I0tII0V8! 8jSt0D OI tI8H8DItt0U IH 8Hj !DIu OI Dj 8Hj D08HS, 0l0CtIOHIC,
DcCh8HICul QhOtOCOQjIHg I0COIUIHg OI Oth0IVI80, VIthOut th0 QIIOI Q0ImI88IOn
O! th0 QuDlISh0t.
lb-1: V-b--Z
lb-1: 7-b-7-7 |QD}
1 C8tu!Ogu0 t0CIU !OI thI8 DOOK I8 uV8I!8Dc !IOm lh0 IItI8h IDIuIj.
jQ080t IH 1.b OH 1Z Qt b8DOH
Dj b1 0St-S0t jQ0S0tt0I tU. OHg OHg
1IIHt0U 8HU DOuHU IH th0 lHIt0U btat08 Dj \UjS80j 1I0S8 lHC.
LOHIC 0V 8DQ8hII0
OI !uIth0I IH!OIDutIOH OH 1OlItj, VI8It OuI V0D8It0: VVV.QOlItj.CO.uK
hI8 DOOK I8 8uQQOIt0U Dj th0 I0HCh IHI8tIj !OI DI0IgH 1!!uII8, u8 QuIt D!
th0 uIg0SS QIOgt8DD0 h08U0U !OI th0 I0HCh lDD8S8j Iu LOHUOH Dj thc
lH8tItut IuH Q 8IS Uu 1OyauD0-\HI.
VVV.!I0HChDOOKH0V8.COD

I| 5u|dCdS

LOHtCHtS
Irons|otor's Pre[oce V
PUmDCt |USt C OU_t
LCHC3O_CS. |tC_C, LCUCkHU, C3HO,
L3HtOt J
1 LtCCk PUmDCt 3HU |OUCtH PUmDCt
1 |tC_C J
PUUtOH3 POtC OH 3 LOHtCmpOt3ty
LS3_C O |tC_C 1
LCUCkHU J
J C3HO
L3HtOt. `YC-LtUCtCU HCSS 3HU tC
LtUH3S J1
1 LOHCCptS. P3tUt3 |UtpCtCS J
t3HStVC |UtpCtCS J
d YOH PCUm3HH LtUH3S
oUCCCSSOH 3HU Lmt. C 1HhHtC
J hCCUttCHCC, Ot 1HUUCtOH d
|1 P3tUt3 YOC PUmDCtS
vi L\WLWb
LHtOO_y O PUmDCt. LChHtOH, LtUCt,
LUtS, ypCS
J2 C LOHCCpt O PUmDCt. PH CVCHt3
POmH3tOH JJ
POOITICMAL |CTES CM bETS CF LPOIMALS JJ1
J LRCtCHCC 3HU LtUCt O PUmDCtS JJb
J C LOHCCpt O oUD-PUmDCt JJ
JD LUtS. C |UHU3mCHt3 COtCm J
J C PUmDCtCSS CHC3HtmCHt O tC
3CC O PUmDCt Jbb
LpCt3tOH3 LmCHSOHS JJ
J P3tUt3 1HtCtUUC Jd
J P_CDt3 O PUmDCtS J
LOHCUSOH 2
J 1H LOHCUSOH. |tOm PUmDCt tO t3HS-CH_ 2JJ
Notes 2Jb
|ndex 2J
t3HS3tOtS |tC3CC
Al ai nadi ou' s NumoerandNumoers, hrstpubl i shedtwoyearsa|ter
his 8eing and cent, is |ar |rom being the speci al ist work its title
mightsuggest.| n|act,itrecapi tul ates and deepens 8eingandcent's
exp|osiono|the pretextsuponwhi chthe ' phi | osophyo|mathemati cs'
isreducedtoatheoretica| ghetto,andthei rki nshi ptothosereacti on-
ary modes o| thought thatsystematica| | y obscure the most pressing
questi ons |orcontemporary phi | osophy. Nei ther does Numoerand
Numoers ba|k atsuggesti ngthateventhegreateste||orts onthepart
o| number-theorists themse|ves have |a| |en short o| the proper|y
radicali mporto|thequesti ono|number. adi ou' sastoni shi nganal y-
sesinthehistorica|sectiono|thebookuncoverthei nextricab| ebond
between phi | osophi ca| assumpti onsandmathematical approachesto
the prob|em in these supposed|y ' mere|y techni ca| ' works. The ai m
o|NumberandNumoers, then, i scertai nl ynot tomou| dtheunwi | l -
i ngreaderi ntoaca| cu|atingmachi ne,ora ' phi | osophero|mathemat-
ics' . itsexhortationisthatwe( mathematici ans, phi | osophers, subj ects
under Capi ta| systematica| | y thi nk number out o| the techni ca| ,
procedural contai nment o| which its quoti di an tyranny, and the
abysma| |earitstri kes into the heart o|the non-mathematici an, are
but symptoms. Symptoms, needless to say, whose expressi on withi n
the situation o|phi | osophy i s a pronounced di staste |or number-as-
phi l osopheme- whenceitsrecogni sableabsencei nmuch' conti nenta|
phi | osophy' , exceptwhere it i s pi | |oried as the very nemesi s o|the
ontological vocati on. So i | the ' return o| the numeri ca| repressed'
proposedhere wi | | ,bydehni ti on, exciteasymptomaticresi stance,|or
viii PWbLP\`b LPLL
adi ouita| one canc| eartheway |or the propertask o| phi |osophy,
as a worki ng-through o| rhe mathematica| onro| ogy presented in
8eing and cett, Numoer and Numoers is a thorough conceptua|
apprenticeshi ppreparatory to thethi nki ngo|theevent.
For the greatthi nkers o| number-theory at the end o|the ni ne-
teenth century, the way to an onto|ogica| understanding o|number
was obscuredbyca| cu| atoryandoperationa| aspects. Today, accord-
ing to adi ou, the po| i ti ca| domi nation o|number undercapi ta| i sm
demands that the proj ect be taken up anew. on| y i |contemporary
phi | osophy rigorous| y thi nks through number can it hope to cut
tbrougb the apparent|y dense and i mpenetrab|e capi ta| i st |abric o|
numeri ca| re| ati ons, tothi nktheevent that can ' subtract'thesubj ect
|rom that ' onti c' skei n wi thout recourse to an anti-mathematica|
romantici sm.
Whi | stthi sdoubt|essdemands' onemoree||ort'ontheparto|the
non-mathematici an, itwou| dbeapeevi shstudento|phi |osophywho,
understanding the stakes and contemp|ating the conceptua| vista
opened up, saw thi s as an unreasonab|e demand - especi a| | y when
adi ou o||ers to those | acki ng in mathematica| know| edge the rare
pri vi |ege o|taki ng a meticu| ous| y navigated conceptua| shortcut to
the heart o| the matter.
adi ou' sremarkab| ebookcompri ses a numbero|di ||erentworks
- a radi ca| phi | osophi ca| treatise,a contri buti ontonumber-theory,a
document in thehi story o| mathematics, acongenia|textbookanda
subt| e and subversi ve exercise in po| i ti ca| theory - whose intricate
interdependenciesde|y anyorder o| priority. The trans|ator' stask i s
to reproduce, wi th a |oreign tongue, that uni que voice that can
compe| usto' countasone' thesedi sparatehgures. InnegotiatingthIs
cha| | enge, I have sought to pri ori ti se c| arity over adherence to any
rigid scheme o|trans| ati on, exceptwhere mathematica|termi no| ogy
demandsconsi stent usage, or where an orthodoxy isc| ear| y a| ready
i n|orcewi thi nextanttrans| ati onso|adi ou' swork. |nthe|attercase,
my re|erences have been O| iver Fe|tham' s | andmark trans|ation o|
8eingandcent,
'
wi thwhich| have soughttoharmonisekeyterms,
Peter Ha| | ward' s i nva| uab|e A Suoject to Trutb, and Ray rassier
and A| berto Toscano' sco| |ecti on o|adi ou' s Tbeoretica| writings.`
Apart |rom these, i n trans| ati ng chapters 2 and 3 I re|erred c| ose|y
toSamCi | |espi eand|ustinC| emens' trans|ationi nUMR a , Science
andTrutb (2OOO). Fi na| | y, whi | stseekinga| sotomai ntai nconti nuity
with | ong-standi ngEng| i shtrans| ati onso|number-rheoretica|works,
somec| assi cs in thei r own right, occasi ona| | y the rigouro|adi ou' s
thi nki ng has demanded a re-eva| uation o|thei r chosen trans| ations
|or key terms. ' Trans|ators a|so hnd themse|ves obIiged to arbitrate
PWbLP\`b LPLL ix
between a hde|ity to adiou' s in many ways admi rab| e i ndi ||erence
to the pedantic apparatus o| scho| ar| y citati on, and the temptation
to pin down thea| | usi onsandquotationsdistri butedthroughouthi s
work. adi ou' sse|ection o|texts is so di scerning, however,thatit i s
hard| ya choretoreturntothem. Havi ngthushad|requentrecourse
tothetextstouchedon i nNumoerandNumoers ( particu|ar| yi nthe
hrst,hi storica| part , Ihaveseennoreasonnottoaddcitationswhere
appropri ate.
One presumes that those se| |-consci ous styles o| phi | osophi ca|
writing that necessitate | aboured ci rcum| ocuti ons or termi no| ogi cal
preci osi tyontheparto|atrans| atorwou| d|or adi ou|a| | underthe
sign o|' modern sophistry' , taken to task herei n, ase| sewhere i n his
work. Neverthe|ess, the aspi ration to universa|conceptua| transpar-
encydoes not prec| ude consideration o|adi ou as sty| i st. hrst|y, as
O| iverFe|thamhasremarked, adiou' s sentences uti|ise subj ect/verb
orderi n a characteristic way, and I have retai ned hi s tensi | e syntax
wheneverdoingsodoesnotj eopardi secomprehensioni ntrans| ati on.
Perhaps j ust as i mportant| y, adi ou does not achieve the de|t and
good-humoured deve|opment o| such extreme| y rich and comp|ex
conceptua| structuresasare|oundinNumoerandNumoers wi thout
a generous and searching | abour on beha| | o| the reader, not to
mentionata|ent|orsuspense. A| thoughthe| atersecti onso|Numoer
andNumoersmayseemdaunting,Ihopetohavereproducedadi ou' s
conhdent, meticu| ous, butneverstu||y mode o|exposi ti on so as to
ease the way as much as possi b| e. In |act, in contrast to hi s own
occasi ona| | ychi||yedicts,| wou| dventuretosuggestthathere,' i nhis
e|ement' , adiou a| | ows hi mse| |a certai n enthusi asm. Onecertai n| y
doesnotaccompany hi m onthi s odyssey wi thout a| so deve| opi ng a
taste |or the ' bitter j oy' o| Number.
Thistrans|ations| ow| ycameto|rui ti ononthebasi so|asomewhat
i mpu| si ve deci si on, it may not have survi ved to comp| eti on wi thout
the enthusi asm and ai d o| an i nternati ona| | y di spersed group o|
|riends and acquaintances, actua| and vi rtua| , wi th whom I shared
theworkinprogress. I wou|d |ike toextendmythankstothosewho
he| ped by poi nti ng out errors and o||ering advice on the evo| vi ng
manuscript. Ani ndya hattacharyya, Ray rassier, Michae| Carr,
HowardCaygi | | , ThomasDuzer,Zachary L. Fraser,PeterHal | ward,
Arme||e Menard Seymour, Reza Negarestani , Robi n Newton, Ni na
Power, Manue| a Tecusan, A| berto Toscano, Kei th Ti | |ord, Davi d
Sneek, and Dami an Vea| . My thanks a| so to Al ai n adi ou |or hi s
generoushe| pandencouragement,andtotheInstitutionandSta||o|
the od| ei an, Tay| or Institution, and Radc| i ||e Science Li braries i n
Ox|ord. Parto|mywork on thetrans| ati onwas undertaken whi |st
W PWbLP\b LPLL
in recei pt o| a studentshi p|rom the Centre |or Research in Modern
European Phi | osophy at Mi dd|esex University, London.
Mygreatestdebto|gratitudei sto Ruth, withoutwhose| oveand
understandi ng my batt|es wi th i ncomprehensi on cou| d not even bc
staged, andtoDona| d, agreati nspi rati on, |orwhomthei nhnitej oys
o| numbersti l l l i e ahead.
Robi nMackay
0
lUHDCt |USt oC OU_t
O. I . A paradox. we | i ve in the era o| number' s despoti sm, thought
yie|dstothe| awo|denumerab|emu|ti p| ici ti es, andyet un| essperhaps
thi sveryde|au|t,thi s|ai | ing,i son| ytheobscureobverseo|aconcept-
|ess submi ssi on we have at our di sposa| no recent, active idea o|
whatnumberi s. Ani mmensee||orthasbeenmade onthis point, but
its | abours were essenti a| | y over by the begi nni ng o|the twentieth
century. theyare those o|Dedeki nd, Frege,Cantor, andPeano. The
|actua| i mpacto|numberon| yescorts a si |ence o|theconcept. How
can we grasp today the question posed by Dedeki nd i n hi s I SSS
treatise, was sind und uas so||en die Zab|en' We know very we| |
what numbers are |or. they serve, stri ct| y speaki ng, |or everything,
they provide a norm |or A| | . utwe sti | | don' t know what they are,
or else we repeat what the great thi nkers o| the |ate ni neteenth
century- anti ci pati ng,nodoubt,theextento|thei r|uturej uri sdi cti on
- sai dtheywere.
O. 2. Thatnumbermust ru|e, thatthe i mperative must be. ' count ! ' -
who doubts thi stoday? And not in the sense o| that maxi m whi ch,
as Dedeki nd knew, demands the use o| the ori gi na| Creek when
retraced. 6u v0pco 6pt0qx|rt - because it prescri bes, |or
thought,its si ngu| arconditionin the matheme. For,underthecurrent
empire o|number, it is nota question o|thought, buto|rea| iti es.
O. J. First|y, number governs our conception o| the po| i tica| , wi th
the currency - consensua| , though it en|eeb|es every po| i tics o|the
Z W\L \b L m\\Lm
thi nkab|e~ o|su||rage,o|opi nionpo| | s, o|themaj ority.Every' po| iti-
ca| ' convocati on,whethergenera| or| oca| , i npo| l i ng-boothorpar| ia-
ment, muni ci pa| or internati ona| , is sett|ed with a count. And every
opi ni on is gauged by the incessantenumeration o|the|ai th|u| even
i| such an enumerati on makes o| every hde| ity an i nhde| i ty . What
counts ~ in the sense o| what is va| ued ~ is that which is counted.
Converse| y, everythi ngthatcan benumbered must beva| ued. 'Po| iti-
cal Science' rehnes numbers into sub-numbers, compares sequences
o| numbers, its on| y obj ect being sbifts in cotingatterns ~ that is,
changes, usual l y mi nute, i n the tabul ati on o| numbers. Political
' thought' i s numeri ca| exegesi s.
O. 4. Number governs the quasi -tota| ity o| the ' human sciences'
although thi s euphemi sm can barel y di sgui se the |act that what is
ca| |ed ' science' here is a techni ca| apparatus whose pragmatic basis
i s governmenta| . Statistics i nvades the entire domai n o|these disci-
plInes. The bureaucrati sati on o|know| edges is above a|| an inhnite
excrescence o| numberi ng.
At the begi nni ng o|the twentieth century, soci ol ogy unvei |ed its
proper dignity~ its audacity, even ~ in the wi | l to submi t the hgure
o|communi tari anbondstonumber. |tsoughttoextendtothesocia|
body and to representati on the Ca| i l ean processes o| l itera| i sation
and mathematisati on. ut u|ti mate|y it succumbed to an anarchic
deve| opmento|thi senterpri se. Itisnowrepl etewith pi ti |u| enumera-
ti ons that serve on| y to va| i date the obvi ous or to estab| i sh par|ia-
mentary opportuni ti es.
History has drawn massi vel y upon stati sti ca| techni que and is ~
even, in |act above al l , under the auspices o| academic Marxism ~
becoming a di achroni c soci o| ogy. lt has lost that whi ch alone had
characterised it, si ncethe Creek and Latin hi stori ans, as a discipline
o|thought. its conscious subordi nati on to the real o|pol i tics. Even
when i tpassesthrough the di ||erent phases o|reaction to number~
economi sm, soci ol ogi sm ~ it does so on| y to |a| | into thei r si mp|e
i nverse. bi ography, hi stori ci si ng psycho| ogi sm.
Andmedicineitse||, apart|romi tspure andsi mp| ereductiontoits
scientihc Other mo| ecul ar bio|ogy , is a disorder|y accumu| ation o|
empi ri cal |acts, a huge web o|b| i nd| ytestednumerica| corre|ations.
These are ' sciences' o|men made into numoers, to thesaturation
poi nt o| a| | possi b|e correspondences between these numbers and
otbernumoers, whatever they might be.
O. 5. Number governs cu|tura| representati ons. O| course, there is
televi si on, vi ewi ng hgures, adverti si ng. ut that's not the most
W\L \b L m\\Lm J
important thi ng. |t is in its very essence that the cultural |abric is
woven by number alone. A ' cul tural |act' i s a numeri cal |act. And,
conversely,whateverproducesnumbercanbecul tural l yl ocated,that
whichhasnonumberwi l l havenonameeither. Art, whi chdeal swi th
numberonl yinso|arastherei sa tbinkingo|number,i sacultural l y
unpronounceableword.
O. 6. Obvi ousl y, numbergoverns theeconomy, and there, without a
doubt,wehndwhatLoui sAl thusserwoul dhave cal l edthe'determi -
nati oninthel astinstance' o|i tssupremacy. Theideologyo|modern
parl i amentary societies, i| they have one, is not humani sm, law, or
thesubj ect. Iti snumber,thecountabl e, countabi l ity. Everycitizen is
expectedto becogni santo||oreigntrade hgures, o|theHexi bi l ity o|
the exchange rate, o|Huctuations in stock pri ces. These hgures are
presented as the real to whi ch other hgures re|er. governmental
hgures,votesandopi ni on pol l s. Ourso-cal led' si tuati on' i sthei nter-
section o| economi c numeri cal ity and the numeri cal ity o| opi ni on.
|rance oranyothernati on canonl yberepresentedonthebal ance-
sheeto|an i mport~export business. The onl y image o|a country i s
thi si nextricabl eheapo|numbersi nwhi ch, we are tol d, itspoweri s
vested,andwhi ch, we hope, i sdeemedworthybythose whorecord
its mood.
O. 7. Number i n|orms our souls. What i s it to exist, i |notto give a
facourao|eaccounto|onesel |? In America,onestarts by sayinghow
much one earns, an i dentihcation that i s at l east honest. Our ol d
country ismorecunni ng. ut sti l | , youdon' thaveto l ook |ar to di s-
cover numerical topi csthateveryone can identi|y wi th. No onecan
presentthemselvesasani ndi vi dual wi thoutstatingi nwhatwaythey
count, |orwhom or |or whatthey are real l ycounted. Oursoul has
thecol dtransparency o|the hgures i nwhi ch it i s resol ved.
O. 8. Marx. 'the icy watero|egoti sti cal cal cul ati on' .
,
And how! To
the point where the Ego o| egoism is but a numeri cal web, so that
the 'egoti sticalcal cul ati on' becomesthe cipher o|a ci pher.
O. 9. utwe don' tknowwhata number i s, sowe don' t knowwhat
weare.
O. IO. MustwestopwithFrege,Dedeki nd, CantororPeano? Hasn' t
anything baened in the thi nki ng o| number? Is there onl y the
exorbitant extent o| its soci al and subj ective reign? And what sort
o|innocentcu|aoi|ity can be attri buted tothese thi nkers ? To what
4 W\L \b L m\\Lm
extent does thei r i dea o| number prehgure thi s anarchic reign? Did
they think number, or the |uture o|general i sed numerical ity? |sn' t
anotber idea o| number necessary, i n order |or us to turn thought
backagai nstthedespoti smo|number,inorderthattheSubj ectmight
be subtracted |romit ? Andhasmathematicssi mpl ystoodbysi lently
during the comprehensi ve soci al i ntegration o|number, over which
it|ormer|y had monopol y? This is what | wish to exami ne.
|
LCHC3O_CS. |tC_C, LCUCKHU,
|C3HO, L3HtOt
|
LtCCK lUHDCt 3HU
|OUCtH lUHDCt
I . I . The Creekthi nkerso|numberre|ateditbacktotheOne,whi ch,
aswecan sti | | seein Euc| i d' s|ements, was considered notto bea
number. |romthesupra-numeric being o| the One, uni ty is derived.
And a number is a co| lecti on o| uni ts, an addi ti on. Underl yi ng thi s
conception i sa prob|ematicthatstretches |romthe E|eaticsthrough
totheNeop|atonists. thato|theprocessi ono|the Mu| ti p| e|romthe
One. Number i sthe schema o|thi s processi on.
I . 2. Themodernco| | apseo|theCreekthi nki ng o|numberproceeds
|romthree |undamenta|causes.
Thehrstisthei rrupti ono|theprob| emo|thei nhni te~ i ne| uctab|e
|rom the moment when, with di ||erenti al ca| cu| us, we deal with
the rea| ity o| series o| numbers which, a|though we may consider
their | imit, cannot be assigned any termi nus. How can the | i mit o|
such a series be thought as numoer through the so| e concept o|
a co| |ecti on o| units ? A seri es tends towards a | i mit. it i s not the
addi ti ono|itstermsoritsuni ts. Itcannotbethoughtasa processi on
o|theOne.
The second cause is that, i |the enti re edi hce o| number i s sup-
ported by the being o| the One, whi ch i s itse| | beyond being, it is
i mpossi b| etointroduce,wi thoutsomeradi ca| subversi on, thatotber
pri nci pl e
=
thatontologica|stoppi ngpointo|number~ whi chiszero,
or the void. It cou| d be, certai n| y ~ and Neop| atoni st specu| ati on
appea|s to such a thesi s~ that the i ne||ab| e and archi -transcendent
character o|the One can be marked by zero. utthen the prob| em
8 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
comes back to numeri ca| one. how to numoerunity, i|the One that
supports it is voi d? Thisprob| em is so comp|exthat, as wesha| | see,
it remai nstoday the key to a modern thi nki ng o| number.
Thethi rd reason, andthemostcontemporaryone,i sthepureand
si mp| edi s| ocati ono|thei deao|abeingo|theOne. Wehndourse| ves
underthe j uri sdiction o| an epoch thatoo|iges usto ho| dthatbeing
is essenti a| | y mu|ti p| e. Consequent| y, number cannot proceed |rom
the supposit ion o| a transcendent being o| the One.
I . J. The modern thi nkingo|numberthus |ound itse| |compe| |edto
|orge a mathematicssubtracted |romthi ssupposi ti on. In so doing, it
took three di ||erent paths.
|rege' s approach, and that o| Russe| | which we wi | l ca| | , |or
brevity,the| ogi ci stapproach , seeksto 'extract'number|romapure
considerationo|the| awso|thoughtitse| |. Number,accordingtothis
poi nt o| view, is a uni versa| trait
,
oftbe concet, deducib|e |rom
abso| ute| y origi na| pri nci p| es pri nci p| es without which thought in
genera| wou| d be i mpossi b|e .
Peano' s and Hi | bert' s approach |et' s ca| | thi s the |orma| i st
approach construes the numerica| he| d as an operati ona| held, on
thebasi s o| certai n si ngu| araxi oms. Thi stime, number occupiesno
parti cu| ar posi ti on as regards the l aws o| thought. |t is a system o|
ru| e-goveined operations, specihed in Peano' s axi oms by way o| a
trans| uci d notati ona| practice, enti re| y transparent to the materia|
gaze. The space o|numeri ca| signs is si mp| ythe most ' originary' o|
mathemati cs proper preceded on| y by pure| y | ogica| ca| cu|ations .
Wemi ghtsaythatheretheconcept o|numberis enti re|y mathema-
tised, i n the sense that it is conceived as existing on|y i n the course
o| its usage. theessence o| number is ca| cu|ation.
The approach o|Dedeki ndandCantor,andthen o|Zerme|o,von
Neumann andCde| which we sha| | ca| | the set-theoretica| or 'p|a-
tonising' approach determi nes number as a particu| ar case o|the
hi erarchyo|sets. The|u| crum, abso| ute|yantecedenttoa| | construc-
ti on, is the empty set, and ' at the other end' , so to speak, nothing
preventstheexami nati ono|i nhnitenumbers. Theconcepto|number
isthusre|erred backtoanonto|ogyo|thepuremu| ti p| e, whosegreat
Ideas are thec| assi ca| axi oms o|settheory. In thi scontext, ' bei ng a
number' is a articu|ar redicate, the deci si on to consider as such
certai nc| asseso|sets theordi na| s, orthecardi nal s, orthee|ements
o|theconti nuum, etc. withcertai ndi sti ncti veproperties. Theessence
o|numberi sthat iti sa pure mul ti p| eendowed with certai nproper-
ties re|ating to its i nterna| order. Number is, be|ore being made
avai | ab|e |or ca| cu| ati on operati ons wi | | be dehned ' on' sets o|
LLLF W\L PWL \LLW W\L
pre-existingnumbers . Herewe are dea| i ngwithan onto| ogi sati ono|
number.
I . 4. Myown approach wi|| be as |o| |ows.
a The|ogicistperspectivemustbeabandoned|orreasonso|i nter-
na| consistency. it cannot sati s|y the requi rements o|thought,
andespeci a| |y o|phi |osophi ca| thought.
b The axiomatic, oroperati ona| , thesi s is the thesi s most ' prone'
to the i deo| ogi ca| soci a| i sati on o|number. it ci rcumscri bes the
question o|a thi nking o|numberas sucb withi n an u|timate|y
tecbnica|proj ect.
c Theset-theoretica| thesisi sthestrongest.Evenso, wemustdraw
|armoreradi ca| consequencesthanthosethathaveprevai |edup
to the present. Thi s book tri es to |o| l ow the thread o| these
consequences.
I. 5. Whence my p| an. To exami ne the theses o| |rege, Dedeki nd
andPeano. Toestab| i shmyse| |wi thi ntheset-theoretica| concepti on.
To radica| i se it. To demonstrate a most i mportant poi nt that
i n the |ramework o| thi s radica| i sation we wi | | rediscover a|so
but not on| y ' our' |ami | i ar numbers. who| e numbers, rationa|
numbers, rea| numbers, a| | , hna| | y, thought outside o| ordi nary
operati onal mani pu| ati ons, as subspecies o| a unique concept o|
number, itse| |statutori | y inscri bed wi thi n the onto|ogy o|the pure
mu|ti p| e.
I . 6. Mathemati cs has a| ready proposed thi s rei nterpretati on, as
mi ghtbe expected, but on|y in a recessivecornero| itse| |, b| i ndto
theessenceo|itsownthought.thetheoryo|surrea|numbers,i nvented
at the begi nni ng o|the I7Os by |. H. Conway ( On Numbers and
Cames, I76),` taken up hrst|y by D. E. Knuth (Surrea| Numbers,
I74),'andthenbyHarryConshori nhi scanoni ca| book( AnIntro-
duction to tbe Tbeory ofSurrea| Numbers, I86).` Any i nterest we
mighthave in thetechni ca| detai | s o| thi stheorywi | | behere strict|y
subordi natedtothematteri nhand. estab| i shi ngathi nkingo|number
that, byhxi ngthe |atter' s status as a |orm o|the thi nki ng o|eing,
can|ree us|romi tsu|hcient|y|oranevent,a| waystrans-numeric,to
summon us, whether thi s event be po| i tica| , artistic, scientihc or
amorous. Li miting the g| ory o| number to the i mportant, but not
exc| usive,g|ory o|eing, andtherebydemonstratingthat what pro-
ceeds|romaneventi ntermso|truth-hde|itycanneverbe,hasnever
been,counted.
0 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
I . 7. None o| the modern thi nkers o| number I understand by thi s,
I repeat, those who, between o| zano and Cde| , tri ed to pi n
down the idea o| number at the j uncture o| phi | osophy and the
| ogico-mathematica| have been ab| e to o||er a unied concept
o| number. Customari | y we speak o| ' number' with respect to
natura| who| e numbers, ' re|ative' posi ti ve and negative who|e
numbers, rationa| numbers the ' |racti ons' , rea| numbers those
that number the | i near continuum and, hna| | y, comp| ex numbers
and quaterni ons. We a|so speak o| number i n a more di rect|y set-
theoretica| sense when designating types o| we|| -orderedness the
ordi na| s and pure quantiti es o|any mu|ti p| e whatsoever, inc| uding
i nhnite quantities the cardi na|s . We might expect that a concept
o| number wou| d subsume a|| o| these cases, or at |east the more
' c| assi ca| ' amongthem,thatis tosay, thewho| enatura| numbersthe
mostobvious schemao|di screte' stepwi se' enumerati on andtherea|
numbers the schema o| the conti nuum . ut thi s is not at a| |
thecase.
I . 8. The Creeks c| ear| y reserved the concept o| number |or who|e
numbers, which was quite i n keepi ng with thei r concepti on o|the
composi ti on o|number on the basis o|the One, since on| y natura|
who|e numberscanberepresentedasco| |ectionso|units. Totreato|
the conti nuum, they used geometrica| denominati ons, such as the
re| ati ons between si zes or measurements. So thei r power|u| concep-
ti onwasmarkedthroughandthroughbythatdivisiono|mathemati-
ca| di sci p| ines on the basis o|whethertheytreato|oneortheother
o| what were he| d by the Creeks to be the two possib|e types o|
obj ect. numbers |rom which arithmetic proceeds andhgures |rom
whi ch, geometry . Thi s di vi si on re|ers, i t seems to me, to the two
orientations whose unity is di a|ectica| | y e||ectuated by e||ecti ve,
or materi a| i st, thought. the a|gebraic orientati on, whi ch works by
composi ng, connecting, combi ni ng e|ements, and the topo|ogica|
orientation, which works by perceiving proximities, contours and
approxi mati ons, and whose poi nt o| departure i s not e|ementary
be|ongi ngs but i nc| usi on, the part, the subset. This di vi si on is sti | |
we| | -|ounded. Wi thi n the di sci p| i ne o| mathematics itse| |, the two
maj or di vi si ons o| ourbaki ' s great treati se, once the genera| onto-
|ogica| |rameworko|settheory i ssetout,dea| with ' a|gebraicstruc-
tures' and'topo| ogi ca| structures' . Andtheva| idityo|thisarrangement
subtends a| | di a|ecti ca| thought.
I . 9. It i s neverthe| ess c| earthat, ever si nce the seventeenth century,
it has no |onger been possi b|e to p| ace any su|hcient|y sophi sticated
LLLF W\L PWL \LLW W\L | |
mathemati ca| conceptexc| usi ve| yononesideoftbeoositionaritb-
metic/geometry. The trip|e cha| |enge o|the i nhni te, o| zero and o|
thetermination o|the idea o|the One disperses theidea o|number,
shreds it into a rehned di a| ectic o|geometry and arithmetic, o|the
topo|ogica| andthe a|gebraic. Cartesi an ana|ytic geometry radica| |y
subverts the di stinction |rom the very outset, and what we know
todayas ' number-theory' hadtoca| | on themostcomp| exresources
o| 'geometry' , i n the extreme|y broad sense i n which the | atter has
beenunderstoodinrecentdecades. Modernsthere|orecanno| onger
accept the concept o| number as the obj ect whose provenance is
|oundationa| the idea o|the One and whose domai n i s prescri bed
( arithmetic . ' Number' i s said i n many senses. ut which o| these
senses constitutes a concept, a| | owi ng somethi ng si ngu| ar to be
proposedto thought underthis name?
I . IO. The response to thi s questi on, in the work o| the thi nkers I
havementioned, is a|together ambi guousandexhi bits no unani mity
whatsoever. Dedeki nd,|orexamp| e,can|egitimate|ybenamedasthe
hrstoneto have, with thenotiono|thecut, convi nci ng| y'generated'
therea| numbers|romtherati ona| s. 'utwhenheposesthequesti on.
'What are numbers ? ' he responds wi tha genera| theory o|ordi na| s
whi chcertai n| y, asa particu| arcase, mi ght|oundthestatuso|who| e
numbers, butwhichcannotbe app| ieddi rect| yto rea| numbers. ''| n
whi ch case, what gives us the right to say that rea| numbers are
' numbers ' ? Si mi | ar| y, in TbeFoundationsofAritbmetic |regeo||ers
a penetratingcritiqueo|a| | previousdehni ti ons i nc| udi ngtheCreek
dehnition o|number as a ' set o|uni ts' '
,
and proposes a concept o|
'cardi na| number' that i n e||ect subsumes ~ on the basis o|certain
arguab|epremises,towhi chI sha|| |aterreturn~ cardina|s i ntheset-
theoretica|sense,o|whi chnatura| who| enumbersrepresentthehnite
case. ut at the same ti me he exc| udes ordina| s, to say nothi ng o|
rationa| numbers, rea| numbers orcomp| ex numbers. To use one o|
his |avourite expressi ons, such numbers do not ' |a| | under the
||regean]concept' o|number. Fi na| | y, itisc| earthat Peano' saxi om-
ati cdehneswho| enumbersandthema| one,asaru|e-governedopera-
tiona|domai n. Rea|numberscancertai n| ybedehneddi rect|ywi tha
speci a| axiomatic that o| a comp|ete, tota| | y ordered Archi medean
he|d . ut, i |the essence o|' number' resides i n the speci hcity o|the
statementsconstitutingtheseaxi omatics,then,giventhatthesestate-
ments are entire|y di ssi mi | ar i n the case o| the axi omatic o|who| e
numbers ando|thato|rea| numbers, i twou| dseemthat, i n respect
o| their concept, who|e numbers and rea| numbers have nothi ng
in common.
| Z LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LP W\, LPW\
I . I I . It is as i |, cha| | engedto propose a concept o|numberthatcan
endure the modern ordea| o|the de|ection o|the One, ourthi nkers
reserve the concept |or one o| its ' i ncarnati ons' ordi na| , cardi na| ,
who| e, rea| . . . , wi thout bei ngab| e to account |or the |actthatthe
idea and the word ' number' are used |or a|| o| these cases. More
parti cu| ar| y, they prove i ncapab| e o| dehning any uni hed approach,
anycommonground, |ordiscretenumerati on who|enumbers , con-
ti nuous numeration rea| numbers and 'genera| ' , or set-theoretica|,
numeration ordina| s and cardina| s . And yet it was precise|y the
prob|em o|theconti nuum, thedia|ectic o|the discrete andthe con-
ti nuous, which, saturating and subverting the ancient opposition
betweenari thmetic andgeometry,compe| |ed themoderns torethink
the idea o|number. In thi ssense thei rwork,admi rab| eas it i s inso
many ways, is a |ai | ure.
I . I2. The anarchythus engendered andI cannottakethi s anarchy
to be i nnocent o|the unthi nki ng despotism o|number i s so much
the greater i n so |ar as the methods put to work in each case are
tota| | ydi sparate.
a Natura| who| e numberscanbedetermined either bymeans o|
a speci a| axi omati c,atwhosehearti sthepri nci p| eo|recurrence
Peano , orbymeans o|a particu| ar hnite case o|a theory o|
ordi na| s, i nwhi chthepri nci p| eo|recurrencebecomesatheorem
Dedeki nd .
b To engender negative numbers, a|gebraic mani pu| ati ons must
be i ntroduced that do not bear on the ' bei ng' o| number, but
onitsoperati onal arrangement,onstructures symmetricisation
o|additi on .
c Thesemani pu| ati onscanberepeatedt oobtainrationa| numbers
symmetrici sati on o|mul ti p| icati on .
d On| ya|undamenta|rupture,markedthi stimebyashi |ttowards
thetopo| ogica| , can|oundthepassageto rea|numbers consid-
erationo|i nhnites ubsetso|theseto|rati ona| s, cutsorCauchy
sequences .
e Wereturntoa|gebratoconstructthehe| do|comp|exnumbers
a|gebrai c c| osure o| the Rea| |ie|d, adj unction o| the ' i dea| '
el ementi v,ordi rectoperati ona| axi omatisation on pai rs
o| rea| numbers .
| Ordi na| s are i ntroduced through the consi deration o| types o|
order Cantor , orthrough theuseo|theconcepto|transitivity
von Neumann .
LLLF W\L PWL \LLW W\L J
g Thecardi na| sare treatedthrough a tota| l ydi ||erent procedure,
thato|bi uni vocalcorrespondence. '

I . I J. Thisarsenal o|procedureswashi storica| | ydeployedaccording

tooverl appi ngl i neswhi chpassed|romtheCreeks, theArabalgebra-
istsandthoseo|Renai ssanceItal y,throughal l the|ounderso|modern
anal ysi s, down tothe 'structura| i sts' o|modern algebra andtheset-
theoretical creationso|Dedeki ndandCantor. Howarewetoextract
|romit a clear and uni vocal i dea o|number, whether we thi nk i tas
atypeo|beingorasanoperati ona| concept? Al| thatthethi nkerso|
numberhave been ableto do is to demonstrate the intellectual pro-
cedures that | ead us to eacb species o| ' number' . ut, i n doi ng so,
theyle|t numberas such i n the shadow o|its name. Theyremai ned
di stant |rom that ' uni que number whi ch cannot be any other' ,
,
-
whose stel l ari nsurrection Mal larme proposed.
I . I4. Thequesti on, then, isas|ol l ows. isthere a conceptoInumber
capab| e o|subsumi ng, under a si ng| e type o| being answering to a
uni |ormprocedure,atleastnatura| whol enumbers,rationa| numbers,
rea| numbers and ordi na| numbers, whether hnite or i nhnite? And
doesitevenmakesensetospeako|a numberwithoutatonce speci-
|yingwhi chsingular,i rreduci bl eapparatusi tbelongsto?Theanswer
isyes. Thi si spreciselywhati smadepossi bl ebythemargi na| theory,
which I propose to make phi l osophi cal l y central , o| ' surreal
numbers' .
Thi s theory o||ers us t hetrue contemporary concept o| number,
andi ndoi ng soitovercomes thei mpasseo|thethi nki ng o|number
initsmodern-cl assi cal |orm,thato|Dedeki nd, |regeandCantor. On
i tsbasi s, andastheresul to|a longl abouro|thought,wecanprevai l
overthe bl i nddespotism o|the numeri cal unthought.
I . I 5. Wemust speak not o|a si ngle ageo|the modern thi nki ng o|
number,buto|whatonemightcal | , taki ngupanexpressi onNatacha
Mi chel appl i es to l i terature, the ' hrst moderni ty' o|the thi nki ng o|
number.
,
Thenames o|thi shrstmodernity arenotthoseo|Proust
and|oyce,butthoseo|olzano,Frege,Cantor,Dedeki ndandPeano.
I amattemptingthepassageto a second modernity.
I . I6. I have sai d that the three cha| lenges to which a modern doc-
trine o|number must address itsel|are those o|the i nhnite, o|zero
ando|theabsenceo|anygroundingbytheOne. I |wecompareFrege
and Dedeki nd ~ so c|ose on so many poi nts ~ on thi s matter, we
4 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
i mmediatelynotethattbcorderin whichtheyarrangethei rresponses
to these chal lenges di ||ers i n an essenti al respect.
0at|e|afa|te Dedeki nd, with admi rablepro|undity,begins uitb tbe
innite, whi ch he determines with a cel ebrated positive property. ' A
system S i s sai d to be i nhnite when it is similar to a proper part o|
i tsel |. '

Andheundertakesi mmediatelyto ' prove' thatsuch an inh-

nite system exi sts. The hnite will be determined onl y subsequent| y,
and i t will be the hnite that is the negation o|the i nhnite i nwhich
regardDedeki nd' snumeri cal di a| ectichassomethi ngo|theHegelian
about i t .

|rege, on the other hand, begi ns with the hnite, with

natural whole numbers, o|which the i nhnite will be the ' pro| onga-
ti on' orthe recol lection i ntheconcept.
,

0a zeta Dedeki nd abhors the voi d and its mark, and says soquite
expl i ci tl y. '|W]e intendherc|orcertai nreasonswhol l ytoexcludethe
empty system which contains no elements at al l . '

' Whereas |rege

makes the statement 'zero is a number`

' the rock o| his whole

edihce.
0at|e 0ae There is notraceo|anypri vi legingo|the One in |rege
preci sel y because he starts audaci ousl y with zero . So one
=
rather
thantbeOne~ comesonl yi nsecondpl ace,asthatwhich |al l sunder
theconcept' i dentica|tozero'theoneandon| yobj ectthat|al l sunder
theconceptbei ngzeroi tsel |, weareentitledtosaythattheextension
o|thi sconcepti sone . Dedeki nd, ontheotherhand, retai nstheidea
that we shoul d ' begi n' wi th one. 'the base-element I i s ca| led the
base-numbero|thenumber-seriesN' .
,

And,correlativel y, Dedeki nd
|al l s back without hesi tati on on the idea o| an absol ute AH

o|
thought,ani deathatcoul dnotappearassuchin |rege' s|ormal i sm.
' Myownreal mo|thoughts,i . e. thetotal i tySo|al l things,whi chcan
beobj ects o|mythought, isi nhni te. '
,
'Thusweseethat,i nretai ni ng
the rights o| the One, the Al l is supposed, because the A| l is that
which, necessari | y, roceeds from tbe One, oncetheOne is.
I . I 7. Thesedivergenceso|orderare nomeretechnical matter. They
relate, |or each o|these thi nkers, to the respective centre o|gravity
o|theirconceptiono|numberand~ aswe shal l see~ tothesi mu| ta-
neousstoppi ngpoi ntand|oundi ngpoi nto|thei rthought.theinhnite
and exi stence |or Dedeki nd, zero andtheconcept |or |rege.
I . I 8. The passage to a secondmodernityo|the thi nki ngo|number
obl iges thought to retuto zero, to the i nhnite and to the One. A
LLLF W\L PWL \LLW W\L 5
tota| di ssi pation o|the One, an onto| ogi cal deci si on as to the being
o|thevoid andthat which marks it, a l avi shi ng without measure o|
innities. sucharetheparameterso|sucha passage. Unbi ndi ng|rom
theOnedel i versustotheunicityo|thevoidandtothedi ssemi nation
o|the i nhnite.
Z
|tC_C
2. I . |rege

mai ntai ns that pure thought engenders number. Like

Mal l arme, a| bei t wi thout the e||ect o| Chance, |rege thi nks that
'every thought emits a dicethrow' .
,
What isca| |ed |rege' s ' |ogicism'
runsverydeep.numberisnotasi ngu| ar|ormo|being,oraparticu| ar
propertyo|thi ngs. Itisneitherempi ri cal nortranscendent. Norisi t,
on the other hand, a constitutive category, it is deduced |rom the
concept. It is, i n |rege' sown words, a traitoftbe concet.

2. 2. The pi vota| property that permits the transition |rom pure

concept to number is that o| a concept' sextcnsion. What does thi s
mean? Ci ven any concept whatsoever, an obj ect ' |a| | s' under thi s
concept i | it i s a ' truth-case' o| thi s concept, i| the statement that
attri butes to thi s obj ect the property compri sed in the concept is a
truestatement. In otherwords,i|theobj ectsatishestheconcept.Note
that everythi ng ori gi nates with the truth-va| ue o|statements, which
is thei r denotation truth or |a| sity . It cou| d be sai d that, i | the
conceptgenerates number, itdoesso only i nso |ar asthere istruth.
Number is in thi ssensethe index o|truth, not an i ndex o| being.
utthe idea o|extensi on i srami hed andobscure.
2. J. Ci ven a concept, by the extensi on o|thatconceptwe mean all
thetruth-cases a| | obj ectsquatrutb-casesthat|al l underthi sconcept.
Everyconcept has anextensi on.
Now, taketwoconceptsC

andC_ . Wewi l l ca| l themequinumer-

ate' i|thereexistsa bi univoca|correspondenceassociating,obj ect|or
LLL 7
obj ect,thatwhi ch|al | sunderconceptC

wi ththatwhi ch|al l sunder

concept C, . That i s, i |a bi univoca| correspondence can be dehned
between theextensi on o|C

andtheextensi ono|C, .
It is c| earthat|rege |avoursa ' cardi nal ' dehnition o|number,that
heisnotoverlyconcernedwiththestructura| ordero|thatwhich|al l s
under the concept. And in |act thi s essential tool o| bi uni vocity i s
characteristico|al l attemptsto' number' themu| ti p| ei nitse| |,thepure
mu| tip| esubtracted|roma| | structura| consi derations. Tosaythattwo
conceptsareequi numerateistosaythattheyhavethe'samequantity' ,
that thei r extensions are the same size, abstracting |rom any con-
sideration asto whatthe obj ectsarethat |a| l underthoseconcepts.
2. 4. Number consi sts in marking equi numeracy, the quantitative
identity o| concepts. Whence the |amous dehni ti on. 'The number
whichbelongstotheconceptC i stheextensi ono|theconceptequi -
numerate toconcept C. ' ` Whi ch means. everyconceptC generates
a number
=
namely, the set o|concepts equi numerate to C, havi ng
the 'samepure quantity' , thesamequanti ty o|extensi on, as C. Note
that a number, grasped in its being, a| ways designates a set ofcon-
cets, name| y a| l those thatsati s|y thestatement' i s a concept equi-
numerate to C' .
2. 5. The concept o| number i s constructed through the |ol l owi ng
progressi on.
Concept Truth Obj ects that |al l under the concept that
satis|y the statement attri buting the concept to the obj ect
Extension o| theconcept al | truth-cases o| the concept Equi -
numeracyo|twoconcepts vi abi univoca| correspondenceo|thei r
extensi ons Concepts that |al | under the concept o| equi nu-
me racytoagi venconceptC thatsati s|y thestatement' i sequi nu-
meratetoC' Theextensi on o|equi numeracy-to-C theset o|
concepts |rom the precedi ng stage The number that be| ongs
to concept C number i s thus the name |or the extensi on o|
equi numeracy-to-C .
|rom a si mp| i hed and operati onal poi nt o| view, i t cou| d a| so
besai dthat, starting |rom theconcept, weare able topassthrough
the obj ect on condition that there i s truth, that we then compare
concepts, and that number names a set o| concepts that have in
common a property made possi bl e and dehned by thi s comparison
equi numeracy .
8 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
2.6. To rediscover the ' ordi nary' , |ami | iar numbers on the basis o|
thi s pure conceptua| i sm regu| ated by truth a| one, |rege beginswith
his admi rab| ededuction o|zero. zeroi sthenumberbe|ongingtothe
concept' noti denti cal toitsel |' . Si nceeveryobj ectisidentica|toitsel |,
the extensi on o| the concept ' not identica| to itse| |' is empty. It
|ol l owsthatzero is the set o|conceptswhoseextensi on is emptyand
whi ch, by vi rtue o| thi s, are equi numerate to the concept 'not
identical to itse| |' . Whi ch is preci sel yto saythatzero i sthatnumber
be| ongi ngto eceryconcept whose extensi on is empty, i szero.
I have i ndicated in I . I 7thepassageto thenumber I: 'One' i sthe
numberthat be| ongs totheconcept' i dentica| tozero
'
. Iti sinterest-
ing to note that |rege emphasises, with regard to I, that it has no
' intuiti ve' or empirica| pri vi lege, any more than it is a transcendent
|oundati on. 'Thedehni ti ono|Idoesnotpresuppose,|oritsobj ective
|egitImacy,any mattero|observed|act.
'
Therecanbenodoubtthat
|rege parti ci pates i n the great modern process o|the destitution o|
the One.
Theengenderingo|thesequenceo|numbersbeyond Iposesonly
techni ca| probl ems, which are reso| ved, in passi ng|romn to M + I ,
by constructing between theextensi onso | correspondingconcepts a
corre| ati onsuchthatthe' remai nder' is exactly I~ whichhasa| ready
been dehned.
2. 7. Thus thededuction o|numberasa consequenceo|theconcept
appears to have been accompl i shed. More exactly. |rom the triplet
concept/truth/obj ect, and |romthesi ngl e|orma| operatoro|bi uni vo-
ca| correspondence,numberemergesasan instanceo|pure thought,
or an i ntegra| |y |ogica| producti on, thought must presuppose itse| |,
in the |orm o|aconceptsuscetib|etohavingtruth-cases andthere-
|ore endowed with an extensi on . In so doi ng, thought presupposes
number.
2. 8. Why choose particu| ar|y the concept ' not identica| to itse||' to
ground zero? Any conceptcou| d be chosen so long as one is sure it
has an empty extensi on, that no thi nkab| e obj ect coul d have the
property itdesignates. |orexampl e' squareci rc| e' ~ a conceptwhich
i n |act |rege dec| ares is ' not so b|ack as jit is] pai nted
'
. ' Si nce we
seek an entire|y conceptual determi nation o| number, the arbitrary
natureo|thischoiceo|concepti sa | i tt|eembarrassing. |regei squite
aware o|thi s, si nce he writes. 'I cou| dhaveused|or the dehnitiono|
nought any other concept under whi ch no obj ect |a| | s. `
:
ut, to
obvi ate his own obj ecti on, he i nvokes Lei bni z. thePri nci pl eo||den-
tity, which says thateveryobj ect i s identica| to itse| |, hasthe merit
LLL
o|being ' pure| y |ogica| ' .

Pure|y | ogica| ? utwe understood that it
wasa mattero||egitimating | ogico-mathemati ca| categories speci h-
ca| |y, number on the so| e basi s o|the | aws o| pure thought. Isn' t
there a ri sk o| ci rcu| arity i | a | ogi ca| ru| e is requi red ri ght at the
outset ?Now, equa| ityi soneo|the| ogica| , oroperati ona| , predicates
thatrequi regrounding name| y, equa| itybetweennumbers . |tmight
be sai d, o|course, that ' i dentica| to itse| |' shou| d not be con|used
with 'equa| to itse| |' . ut i |' i dentity' must here i ndeed be care|u| | y
di stinguished|romthe| ogi ca| predicate o|equa| i ty, iti sneverthe| ess
equa| | yc| earthatthe statement ' everyobj ect is i dentica| to i tse| |' i s
nota ' pure| y|ogica| ' statement. Itisanonto-|ogica|statement.And,
quaonto|ogi ca| statement,itisi mmediate| ydi sputab| e. noHege| i an,
|or examp| e, wou| d admi tthe uni versa| va| idity o|the pri nci p| e o|
identity.|orourhypotheti ca| Hege| i an, theextensi ono|theconcept
' not identica| to itse| |' is anythi ng butempty!
2. 9. The pure| y a priori determi nati on o| a concept certain to have
an empty extensi on is an i mpossi b| e task wi thout power|u| pri or
onto| ogica| axi oms. The i mpassethat|rege meets here i s thato|an
uncheckeddoctrineoftbeobject. |or,|romthe poi nt o|viewo|the
pure concept, what is an ' obj ect' in genera| , any obj ect whatsoever,
taken |rom the tota| Universe o| obj ects ? And why i s the obj ect
requi redtobeidentica|toitse| |,whentheconcepti snotevenrequi red
to be non-contradictory in order to be | egi ti mate, as i ndicated
by |rege' s positive regard |or concepts o| the ' square ci rc| e' type,
which, he stresses, are concepts | i ke any other? Why wou| d the
|aw o| the being o| obj ects be more stringent than the | aw o| the
being o|concepts ? Doubt|ess it wou|d be so ifone uere to accet
Leibnizian onto|ogy, |or whi ch exi stent obj ects obey an otber
rinci|e than do thi nkab| e obj ects, the Pri nci p| e o| Su|hcient
Reason. It thus appears that the deduction o|number on the basis
o|the concept i s not so much universa| , or ' pure| y | ogica| ' , as it is
Lei bnizi an.
2. IO. To positas se| |-evidentthattheextensi on o|a concepti sthi s
orthat |orexamp| e, thattheextensi ono|theconcept' notidentica|
to itse| |' is empty i s tantamount to supposi ng that we can move
unprob|ematica| | y|romconcepttoexi stence,giventhattheextensi on
o|aconceptbri ngsi ntop| aythe' obj ects 'that|a| | underthi sconcept.
Agenera| isedonto| ogica|argumentisatworkhere,anditi sthi svery
argumentthatsubtendsthededuction o|numberonthe basi so|the
concepta| one. numberbe|ongstotheconcepttbrougbtbemediation
oftbe tbinkab|eobjects tbatfa||under tbe concet.
Z0 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
2. I I . The pri nci pal thought-content o| ussel l ' s paradox, com-
municated to Frege i n I03, is its undermi ni ng o|every pretensi on
to l egi sl ate over existence on the basi s o| the concept al one, and
especi al l y over the exi stence o| the extensi on o| concepts. Russell
presentsa concept in Frege' ssense ~ theconcept'to bea setthatis
not an element o| itsel|' ~ whi ch i s surel y a wholly proper concept
more so, truth be told, than ' not identical to itsel|' , but one none-
theless uboseextensiondoesnotexist. Itisactual l ycontradictoryto
suppose that ' obj ects' ~ i n this i nstance, sets ~ that ' |al l under this
concept'themselves|orma set. '

And,i |theydo not|orm a set,then

no bi uni vocal correspondence whatsoever can be dehned |or them.
Sothi s'extensi on' doesnots ustainequi numeracy,andconsequently
no number belongs to the concept 'set that i s not an element o|
itsel |'.
The advent, to the concept, o| an i nnumerable rui ns Frege' s
general deducti on. And, taki ngi ntoaccountthe |act thatthepara-
doxi cal conceptinquestioni squiteordi nary |orexampl e,theconcept
i sval i d|or all thesetscustomari l yused bymathematici ans. theyare
not elements o| themselves , we mi ght wel l suspect that there exist
manyotherconceptstowhichnonumberbelongs. In|act,itisimpos-
sible to predict a pri ori the extent o|the disaster. Even the concept
' not i denti cal to itsel |' coul d well turn out not to have any existent
extensi on, whi chi ssomethi ngentirelydi ||erent|romhavi nganempty
extensi on. Iet' s add that Russel l ' s paradox is purely logi cal , that is
to say, i t i s preci sel y proven: to admit the existence o| a set o| all
those sets that do not bel ong to themselves undermines deductive
l anguage by i ntroducing a forma| contradi ction the equivalence
between a proposi ti on and its negation .
2. I 2. A sort o| ' repai r' was proposed by Zermel o.

,
It consi sts in
sayi ng that we can concl ude |rom the concept the exi stence o| its
extensi ononcondition tbatueoerateuitbinana|readygicenexis-
tence. Ci ven a concept C and a domain ofexisting objects, we can
say that there exi sts, in tbis existing domain, the set o|obj ects that
|al l underthi sconcept~ i . e. theextensi ono|theconcept.Obvi ousl y,
thi s extensi on is rel ati veto a domai n speci hed i n advance and does
notexi st' i nitsel|' .Thi si sa maj orontologicaltrans|ormation:withi n
thi snew |ramework it i snotpossi bl eto move |rom concepttoexi s-
tence and thus to number , we can onl ymoveto an exi stence that
i ssomehowcarvedouto|a pre-givenexi stence. Wecan'separate' i n
a gi ven domai n those obj ects wi thi n it that val i date the property
exposedbytheconcept. Thi si swhyZermel o' spri nci pl e, whi chdras-
tical l yl i mitstherightso|theconceptando|l anguageoverexistence,
LLL Z
is cal led the Axiom o| Separati on. And it does i ndeed seem that
accepting thi s axi om sa|eguards us agai nst the i nconsi stency-e||ects
o|Russel l -type paradoxes.
2. I J. Russel l ' s paradox is not paradoxi cal in the sl ightest. It is a
materi al i stargument, because it demonstrates thatmul ti ple~being is
anterior to the statements that a||ect it. It i s i mpossi bl e, says the
' paradox' , to accord to l anguage and to the concept the right o|
un|ettered legislation overexi stence. Even supposi ng that there i s a
transcendental |unction o| l anguage, itsupposesal so the avai l abi l ity
o|some pri orexistent, the power o|thi s |unction being si mpl ythat
o| carving out or del i miting extensi ons o| the concept wi thi n thi s
specihedexistent.
2. I4. Can we, in assumi ngZermel o' s axiom, savethe |regean con-
struction o|number? Once agai n, everythi ng turns on the questi on
o| zero. | might proceed i n the |ol l owing way. given a del i mited
domain o|obj ects, whose existence i s somehow external l y guaran-
teed, | wi l l cal l ' zero' or ' empty set' , whi ch is the same thi ng that
which detaches, or separates, wi thi n thi s domai n, the concept ' not
identical toitsel |' , oranyothersuchconceptunderwhichIcanassure
mysel |that no obj ects o| the domai n |al l . As we are deal i ngwith a
limiteddomai n, andnot,as in |rege' sconstructi on, wi th' al l obj ects'
a|ormulationthatledtothei mpasseo|a Lei bni zi anchoicewi thout
criteri a , there i s a chance o| my hnding such a concept. l|, |or
example, I take a set o| bl ack obj ects, I wi l l cal l ' zero' that which
separates in thi s set theconcept 'to be white'. The rest o|the con-
structionwi l l |ol l ow.
2. I 5. utwhatdomai no|obj ectscoul dIstartwi th, |orwhi chitcan
be guaranteed that these obj ects pertai n to pure thought, that they
are ' purelylogical ' ? ecal l that |rege i ntendstoconstructa concept
o| number that i s, according to his own expressi on, ' not. . . either
anything sensi ble or a property o|an external thing' ,

-
and that he
emphasises on several occasi ons thatnumber i s subtracted |rom the
representabl e. Estab| i shing that number is a producti on o|thought,
deducing it|romthe abstract attributes o|the concept i n general ~
thiscannotbe achieved usi ngb|ack andwhite obj ects . Thequestion
then becomes. what exi stent can I assure mysel | o|, outside o| any
experience? |stheaxi om' somethi ngexi sts' anaxi omo|purethought
and, supposing that i t i s, can I discern any property o| whi ch it
is certain that it does not belong i n any way to this exi stent
'something' ?
ZZ LLWLPL\L1Lb! LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
2. 6. A ' pure|y |ogica| ' demonstration o| existence, |or thought, o|
a nondescri ptobj ect,a poi nt o|being, an ' obj ect x'. thestatement
'every x i s equa| to itsel |' is an axi om o| logic with equa| ity. Now,
theuni versal rules o|hrst-orderlogic,a logicval i d|oreverydomai n
o|obj ects, a| low us to deduce, |rom the statement ' everyx is equal
tox' , thestatement'thereeistsanx that i sequal tox' subordina-
ti on o|theexi stenti al quantiher totheuniversal quantiher . '`There-
|ore, there existsx at |east thatx which is equa| to itsel | .
Thuswecandemonstratewi thi nthe|rameworko|settheory,rst
ofa||,bypurel y| ogi ca| means,thata setexists. Tbenwecanseparate
the empty set wi thi nthat exi stcnt whose exi stence has been proved,
by uti | i si ng a property that no e|ement can sati s|y |or example, ' i s
not equa| to itse||' . We have respected Zermel o' s axi om, since we
have operated wi thi n a pri or exi stent, but we have succeeded i n
engenderi ngzero.
2. I 7. lti squiteobvi ous, | thi nk, thatthis ' proo|' isan unconvi nci ng
artihce, a | ogi cal s|eight o| hand. From the uni versa| postu| ate o|
sel |-equal i ty whi ch we might possi bl yacceptasan abstract law, or
a | aw o|the concept , who cou| d reasonab| y i n|er that there cxists
somethi ngratherthannothing? ||theuni versewereabsol utelyvoid,
it wou|d remai n |ogi ca| | y admi ssi bl ethat, supposi ngthat somethi ng
exi sted which woul dnot be thecase , it woul dhave to beequal to
itsel |. The statement' everyx is equal tox' woul dbe val i d, butthere
wou| d be no x, so the statement ' there exi sts an x equal to itsel |'
woul dnot be va| i d.
Thepassage |rom universa| statement to assertion o|exi stence i s
anexorbi tantri ght, whi chtheconceptcannotarrogateto itse||. |tis
not possib|e to e| icit exi stence on the basi s o| a uni versal |aw that
cou|d be uphe|d j ust as we|| i n abso| ute nothingness ( consi der |or
exampl ethestatement ' thenothi ng is identical to itse| |' . And, si nce
no exi stent obj ect can be deduced |rom pure thought, you cannot
separate zero therei n. Zerme| odoes notsave Frege.
2. I 8. The exi stence o| zero, or o| the empty set, and there|ore the
exi stence o| numbers, i s in no way deduci bl e |rom the concept, or
|rom | anguage. 'Zero exi sts' i s inevitab| y a rst assertion, the very
one that hxes an exi stence |rom whi ch a|| others wi | | proceed. Far
|rom it beingthe casethatZerme| o' saxi om, combi ned with |rege` s
|ogici sm, al l owsustoengenderzeroandthenthechai no|numbers,
it is on the contrary the absol utely i naugural exi stence o|zero as
emptyset thatensuresthepossi bi l ityOseparatinganyextensi ono|
a concept whatsoever. Numbercomes hrst here. it is that point of
LLL ZJ
being upon whi ch the exerci se o|theconceptdepends. Number, as
numbero|nothi ng, orzero, s utureseverytexttoi tsl atentbei ng. The
void is not a production o|thought, because it i s |rom its exi stence
that thought proceeds, i n as much as ' it i s the same thi ng to thi nk
andtobe' .

| nthi ssense, i ti stheconceptthatcomes|romnumber,

and notthe otherway around.
2. I9. Frege' sattempt i s uni que i ncertai n regards. i t i s nota matter
o|creating new intra-mathematical concepts as wi l l be the case i n
Dedeki ndandCantor , but o|el uci dati ng~ withthesol eresourceo|
rigorous ana| ysi s ~ what, among the possi ble obj ects o| thought,
si ngul ari ses those whi ch |al l under the concept o| number. | n thi s
respect,myowne||orts |ol l owalongthesame | i nes. We si mpl y need
to remove the obstacles by re|rami ngthe i nvestigation according to
new parameters. Above al l , i t must be shown that thought i s not
constituted byconcepts andstatements alone, but al so by deci si ons
thatengage itwi thi ntheeocb o|its exercise.
J
PUUtOH3 lOtC OH 3
LOHLCmOt3ty LS3_C O |tC_C
W W
J. 1 . |acques-A| ai n Mi | l er, in a I65 |ecture entit|ed ' Suture' and
subtit|ed' E|ementso|the| ogico|thesi gni her' ,

put|orwardareprise
o||rege' s construction o|number. Hi stext |ounds a certain regime
o|compati bi | ity bctween structura| i sm and the Lacanian theory o|
thesubj ect.l ammyse| |peri odi ca| | ybroughtbacktothi s|oundation,

a| bei tonl yon condi ti ono|di sruptingitsomewhat. Twenty-hveyears

| ater, ' Iam here, l amsti | | here' .'
3. 2. Mi | | er puts the |o| | owing question to |rege. ' wbat is it that
|unctions in the sequence o|who| e numbers ? '
-
And the response to
thi s question ~ a response, might l say, |orce|u| | y extorted out o|
|rege~ i sthat 'in the process o|theconstitutiono|the sequence, tbe
function oftbesubject, unrecognised,

i soperative' .
J. J. I| we take thi s response seri ous| y, it means that, in the | ast
i nstance,i nthepropermodeo|its mi scogni ti on, itisthe|unction o|
thatsubj ectwhoseconceptLacan' steachi ngcommunicatestousthat
consti tutes, i |not the essence, at least the process o|engenderment
the 'genesis o|progressi on' , says Mi | |ero|number.
Obvi ous| y such a radica| thesi s cannot be ignored. Radica|, it
wou| d seem at hrst g| ance, wi th regard to |rege' s doctri ne, which
dedicatesaspecihcargumenttothere|utationo|theideathatnumber
might be ' subj ective` a| though iti strue that, |or |rege, ' subj ective'
means'caughtupi nrepresentation' , whi chobvi ous| ydoesnotmatch
theLacani an|unctiono|thesubj ect . Radi cal al sowi thregardtomy
P L\WL\PT \bPLL \ LLL Z5
ownthesi s, si nce| ho| dthatnumberi sa |orm o|bei ng, andthat, |ar
|rom being subtended by the |unction o| the subj ect, it is on the
contrary onthebasi so|number,andespeci a| | yo|thathrstnumber-
being that is the void or zero , that the |unction o| the subj ect
recei ves its sma| | share o|bei ng.
J. 4. We wi | | not undertake here to exami ne the i mportance o| thi s
text~ thehrstgreatLacani antextnottobewritten byLacanhi mse| |
=
|or the doctri ne o| the si gni her, nor to exp| ore what ana|ogy it
emp|oystoi | | umi natethei mportance~ attheti me, sti | | | itt|eappreci -
ated~ o|a| |thatthe mastertaughtus astothesubj ect' s beingcom-
pri sedi nthee||ects o|a chai n. Weseektoexami neexc| usi ve| ywhat
Mi | |er' s text assumes and proposes uitb regard to tbe tbinking of
numberassucb.
J. 5. Mi | |er'sdemonstrati on is organised as |o| | ows.

To|oundzero, |rege as we saw i n 2. 6 summonsto hi sai dthe

concept ' not identi ca| to itse| |' . No obj ect |a| | s under this concept.
Ln this poi nt, Mi | |eremphasises~ even compounds ~ |rege' s re|er-
enceto Lei bni z. To supposethatan obj ect cou|d be not be identica|
to itse| |, or that it cou| d be non-substitutab| e |or itse| |, wou| d be
entire|ytosubverttruth.| nordertobetrue,astatementbearingupon
obj ect A mustsupposethe invariance o| A in each occurrence o|the
statement, 'each ti me' the statement is made. The pri nci p|e ' A i s A'
is a | aw o|any possi b|e truth. And reci proca| | y, i n order thattruth
be saved, it is cruci a| that no obj ect shou| d |a| | under the concept
' not identica| to itse||' . Whence zero, whi ch numbers the extensi on
o|such a concept.

Numberi sthusshownto issue|romtheconcepta| one,oncondi -

tiono|truth. utthi sdemonstrationi sconsistenton| ybecauseitbas
beenab|etoincokein tbougbtanobjectnon- identica| to itse|f, even
i |on| ytodi scharge itinthe inscription o|zero. Thus, Mi | |erwrites,
'the0whi chisinscribedi nthep|aceo|thenumberconsummatesthe
exc| usion o|thi sobj ect' .
To say that ' no obj ect' |a| | s under the concept ' not identica| to
itse||' is to make thi s obj ect vani sh as soon as it is invoked, in thi s
nothingtheon| ysubsi sti ngtraceo|whi chwi | | be,preci se| y, themark
zero. ' Ourpurpose has been, ' Mi | | erconc| udes, 'to recognize in the
zeronumberthe suturingstand-i n |or the | ack' .
l

wbat is i tthat comes to|ack thus ? What' obj ect' can have as a
stand-in |or its own absence the hrst numerica| mark, and support,
Z LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF WL, LPW\, LPW\
in relationto the wholechai no|numbers,theuni nscri bab| epl aceo|
that whi ch appears onl y in order to vani sh? What i s it that i nsi sts
betueennumbers We mustcertai nl yagreethatno' obj ect'can, even
by |ai l ure or de|ault, |al l i n that empty pl ace that assigns non-
sel |-i dentity. ut there does exist or hcre, more preci sel y, ek-si st
preci sel y that whi ch is not obj ect, that whi ch i s roer to the non-
obj ect, the obj ect as i mpossi bi l ity o| the obj ect. the subj ect. 'The
i mpossi bl eobj ect, which thedi scourse o|logicsummonsasthenot-
identical withitsel |andthenrej ects . . . i nordertoconstituteitsel|as
what it i s, whi ch it summons and rej ects uanting toknou notbing
ofit,wenamethi sobj ect,in so|aras it|unctionsas theexcesswhi ch
operates i nthesequenceo|numbers, thesubj ect. '
|
j
3. 6. We must meti cul ousl y di sti ngui sh between that which Mi l ler
assumes |rom|regeandthatwhi ch he deci phers i n |rege' swork on
hi sown account. l wi l l proceed i nthree stages.
J. 7. IIK51 51AGL Mi l lertakesas hi sstartingpoi ntthe proposition
o|Lei bniz~|regeaccordingtowhichsa|ca ceritate'
,
demandsthatal l
obj ectsshoul dbe identica| tothemselves. Thewhol e l iteral i sationo|
the real towards which Lei bni z worked al | hi s l i |e, and to which
|rege' s i deography i s the undoubted hei r, i s i n |act surreptiti ousl y
assumed here. ln thi s regard, Mi l ler i s indeed rightto equate, along
with Lei bni z, ' identi cal toitsel|' and' substitutabl e' , thus denotingan
equi valencebetweentheobj ectandthel etter. |orwhatcou| ditmean
tospeak o|thesubstitutabi | ityo|anobj ect?On| ythel etteri sentirely
substitutab| e|oritsel|. ' Ai sA' isa pri nci pl eo|letters,noto|obj ects.
To be identi habl e at a remove |rom itsel|, and subj ect to questions
o| substitutabi l ity, the obj ect must |all under the authority o| the
letter,

,
whichal onerendersitovertocal cul ati on. | |Aisnotidentical
at all moments to A, truth or rather veridical ity as ca|cu|ation
col | apses.
Thel atenthypothesi s i sthere|orethattruthisoftbeorderofca|-
cu|ation. |t is onl y on thi s supposi ti on that, hrstly, the obj ect has
tobe represented asa l etter, and, secondl y, thatthenon-sel|-identity
o| the obj ect-letter radical l y subverts truth. And i | truth is o| the
order o| calcul ati on, then zero ~ which numbers the excl usi on
o|the non-sel |-identical the subj ect ~ i s itsel |nothing but a letter,
the letter 0. The concl usi on then |ol l ows straight|orward|y that
zero i sthei nertstand-i n|or |ack,andthatwhat'drives' thesequence
o|numbers as a product o|marks~ a repetition in which is articu-
l ated the mi scogni ti on o|that which i nsi sts ~ is the |unction o|the
subj ect.
P L\WL\PT \bPLL \ LLL Z7
Moresi mpl y. i |truth i s saved onl y by uphol di ngthe pri nci pl e o|
identity,thentheobj ectemerges i nthehel do|truth onl yas a letter
amenabletocal cul ati on. And, i |thi s i sthecase, numbercan sustai n
itsel |onl yasthe repetition o|thatwhi ch i nsi sts i n l acki ng, whi ch i s
necessarilythenon-obj ect orthenon-letter,whi chi sthesamethi ng ,
the pl ace where ' nothingcanbewri tten' '
-
~ i nshort,thesubj ect.
J. 8. Noone isobl igedto bea Lei bni zi an, even i |wemustrecognise
inthi sphi l osophythearchetypeo|oneo|thethreegreatorientations
inthought,theconstructi vistornomi nal i storientation theothertwo
being the transcendent and the generic . ' ` As an advocate o| the
generic orientati on, I decl are that, |or truth to be saved, one must
preciselyabo|isb thosetwogreatmaxi mso|Lei bni zi anthought,the
Princi pl eo|Non-Contradiction andthe Princi pl eo|Indi scerni bl es.
J. 9. Atruthsupposesthatthesituationo|whi chiti sthetruthattai ns
non-sel|-i dentity. thi snon-sel |-identity i si ndicated by thesi tuati on' s
being supplemented by an 'extra' multi pl e, one whose belonging or
non-belongingtothesi tuati oni s, however, i ntri nsi cal l yundeci dabl e.
| have namedthi ssupplement'event' , anditi sal ways |rom anevent
that a truth-process originates. Now, when the undeci dabl e event
mustbedecidedwi thi nthesi tuati on, thatsi tuati onnecessari l yunder-
goes a vaci l lation asto its identity.
J. IO. The process o| a truth ~ puncturing the strata o| knowledge
harboured by the situation ~ inscri bes itsel |wi thi n the si tuati on as
i ndi scerni bl ei nhnity,whi chnothesauruso|establ i shedl anguagehas
thepowertodesignate.
Let' ssaysi mpl ythatzero, orthe void, has nothing i n itsel |to do
withthesal vationo|truth,whichi satplay i nthe' l aboured' correl a-
ti onbetween theundeci dabi l i ty o|the event andthe i ndi scerni bi l ity
o| its result within the si tuati on. No more so than it is possi bl e to
re|ertruthtothe power o|the letter, si ncetheexi stenceo|a truth is
preciselythattowhi chnoinscriptioncanattest.Thestatement'truth
i s' ~ |ar |romguaranteeingthat noobj ect |al l s under the concept o|
' not identical to itsel |' andthatthere|orezero is the numbero|that
concept~ i nsteadal lows usthi sthree|ol dconcl usi on.
=
there exists an obj ect that has attained ' non-se| |-i dentity' unde-
ci dabi l ity o|theevent ,
=
thereexistan i nhnityo|obj ectsthatdonot|al l underanyconcept
indi scerni bi l ityo|a truth ,
~ number is nota category o| truth.
Z8 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
3. I I . 5LCONl 51AGL What is the strategy o| Mi l ler's text ? And
what role does number as sucb play wi thi n it? Is i t real l y about
argui ngthatthe |unction o|the subj ect is i mpl icated~ as a mi scog-
ni sed |oundation ~ in the essence o| number? Thi s i s undoubtedly
what isstatedi nallcl aritybythe|ormul a| haveal readyci tedabove.
' | ntheprocesso|theconsti tuti ono|thesequence o|numbers| . . . the
|unction o| the subj ect. . . i s operative. '

More preci sel y, onl y the

|unction o|the subj ect ~ that which zero, as number, marks in the
pl ace o| lack, holding the pl ace o| its revocation ~ is capable o|
expl ai ni ng what, in the sequence o|numbers, |unctions as iteration
or repetiti on. being excl uded, the subj ect the non-sel |-identical
i ncl udesitsel |throughtheveryi nsistenceo|marks, incessant| yrepeat-
ingthe' onemore step' , hrstly|rom0toI ' the0counts|or I ' , notes
Mi l l er , then i ndehni tel y, |rom n to n + 1 . ' i ts the subj ect' s~ inthe
Lacani an sense| exc|usion|romthe held o|numberi si dentihed with
repetiti on' .

3. I2. Otherpassages o| Mi l ler' stextare more equivocal , i ndicating

an anal ogi cal reading. |or exampl e. ' I| the sequence o| numbers,
metonymy o|thezero, begi nswith its metaphor, i |thezeromember
o|the sequence as number i s only the stand-in suturingthe absence
o| the absol ute zero which moves beneath the chai n accordi ng to
the a|ternation o| a representation and an exc| usi on
=
then what is
thereto stop us |rom recogni si ngi n the restored re| ati on o|the zero
to the sequence o|numbers the most el ementary articulation o|the
subj ect' srel ati ontothesi gni |yi ngchai n? ` ' Theword' recogni si ng' is
compatible wi th the idea that the |regean doctrine o| number pro-
poses a ' matri x' the title o|another arti c| e by Mi l ler on the same
question

' that is i somorphic with maxi mum case or si mi l ar to

mi ni mumcase , but i n anycase not identica| to, therelation o|the
subj ecttothesigni |yi ngchai n. |rege' sdoctrinewou| dthenbe a per-
ti nentana|ogon o|Lacani an| ogi c. towhi chwewou| dhavenoreply,
si nce in that case Mi l l er' stextuou|dnotbea textaboutnumber. |t
woul dbedoublynotso. hrstlybecauseitwouldspeak,noto|number,
but o| |rege' s doctrine o|number without taki ng any position on
theval i dity orconsistency o|thatdoctrine , andsecondly because it
would present the sequence o|numbers as a di dactic vector|orthe
logic o|the si gni her, andnot as an e||ective exampl eo|an i mplica-
ti on o|the |unction o|thesubj ect i n the sequence o|numbers.
J. IJ. Thiscritica| evasi onassumesthattwoconditions aremet.that
there i s, between the doctrine o| number and that o|the signiher,
i somorphi sm or si mi | arity, and not i dentity orexemp| i hcati on, and
P L\WL\PT \bPLL \ LLL Z
thatMi l lerdoes not account|or theval i dity o|theFregean doctrine
o|number.
J. I4. On thi s last poi nt, where, to my mi nd that i s, to one who is
concernedwiththethi nki ng o|numberassuch , everythi nghangsi n
theba| ance, Mi l | ermai ntai nsthe suspense at every step. He speaks
o|' |rege' ssystem' wi thoutourbei ngab| eto decidewhetherornot,
inhi sopi ni on, the| atterisanactual | yaccomp| i shedtheoryo|number,
theoryentirely de|ensi bl e i n essence. |t is stri ki ngthatat nopoi nt
in thi sverysubtle and intricate exercise are the i mmanentprob| ems
o|' Frege' ssystem' everrai sed~ inparti cul ar,thosethat| highl ighted
abovewithregardtozero,theimpacto|Russel l ' sparadox,Zermel o' s
axi omand, ultimately,the relation between | anguageandexistence.
|t thus remai ns possib|e to be| ieve that the i somorphi sm si gni her/
numberoperatesbetween, on theonehand, Lacanand, on theother,
Frege reducedtoa si ngul artheorywhoseinconsistency i so|nocon-
sequencewith regard to the ana| ogi ca| goa| s pursued.
J. I 5. Evi dentl y, itremai nstobeseenwhetherthi si nconsi stencyi sn' t,
as a resu| t, transferred to tbe otber o|e oftbeana|ogy, that i s, to
the l ogic o|the signiher. The risk i s not i nconsequenti a| , given that
Mi l ler p| aces the latter i n a |oundi ng posi ti on with regard to l ogi c
tout court ~ presumabl y i ncl udi ng Frege' s doctri ne. ' The hrst jthe
l ogi co|thesigniher treatso|theemergenceo|thesecond jthel ogi c
o|| ogicians] , andshoul d beconcei vedo|asthe| ogico|theori gi no|
l ogic. '

' utwhathappens i |thecomp| eti on o|thi s process o|ori gi -

nati on is i nduced, through the theme o| the subj ect, by a scheme
Frege' s marredbyinconsi stency? utthi sisnotmyprobl em. Civen
theconditions | have | ai d out, i |thetext i s notaboutnumber, then
we are hni shed here.
J. I6. 1HIKl 51AGL There remai ns, however, an i ncontestabl e
degreeo|adherence on Mi l |er' s part to a common representation o|
number, wherein number i s conceived o| as i n someway intuitive,
andwhich | cannotaccept. Thi sconcerns the idea~ central , si nce it
is precisely here that the subj ect makes itse| |known asthecause o|
repetition~ accordingtowhi chnumberisgraspedasa ' |uncti oni ng' ,
orinthe'genesi so|the progressi on' . Thi s i sthe i mage o|a number
thatis'constructed' iteratively,onthebasi so|thatpoi nto|puncture
that is denotedbyzero. Thi sdynami ca| theme,whi chwou| dhaveus
seenumberaspassage,asse| |-producti on, asengenderment,i somni -
presenti nMi | ler' stext.Theana| ysi scentrespreciselyonthe' passage'
|rom0to I , oron the ' paradoxo|engendering' n + I |rom n.
J0 LLWLPL\L1Lb! LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
J. I 7. Thi s i mage o| number as iteration and passage precl udes any
order|y di scussi on o| the essence o| number. Lven i | we can on|y
tracersethenumericdomainaccordi ngtocertai n|auso|progression,
o| whi ch successi on is the mostcommon but not the on| y one, |ar
|rom i t , why must it |ol l ow that these | aws are constitutive o| the
being o|number? It i s easy to see why ue have to ' pass' |rom one
numberto the next, or|rom a sequence o|numbers to its l i mit. ut
it i s, to saythe |east, i mprudent thereby toconc| ude that numberis
dened or constituted by sucb assage. |t mi ght we|l be and thi s is
mythesi s thatnumberdoesnotpass,thatitisi mmemori a| l ydeployed
i na swarmi ng

coextensivewith its being. Andwewi l l seethat,j ust

as these labori ous passages onl y govern our passage through thi s
deployment,i nthesameway it is l i kel ythatwe remai ni gnoranto|,
have at the presentti me no use |or, or no access to, thegreaterpart
o| those numbers thatourthoughtcanconceive o|as existent.
3. I 8. The ' constructivist' thesi s, which makes o| iteration, succes-
si on, passagetheveryessenceo|number,|eadstotheconc| usi onthat
cery feu numbers exi st, since here ' exi st' has no sense apart |rom
thate||ectivelysupported bysome such passage. Certai nl y, i ntui ti on-
ists assume thi s i mpoveri shed perspecti ve. Even a semi -i ntui ti oni st
| i keore|
,,
thoughtthatthegreatmaj orityo|naturalwhol enumbers
' don' t exi st' except as a hcti ona| and i naccessi bl emass. So it might
wel l be thatthe Lei bni zi anchoicethatMi l ler borrows|romFrege is
doub|ed by a | atent i ntui ti oni stchoice.
Wemustrecogni sethat i ntui ti oni st|ogicandthel ogico|thesi gni -
her have more than a | itt|e i n common, i |on| y because the |ormer
express|yi nvokesthesubj ect the' mathematici an~subj ect' asparto|
its machi nery. ut i n my opinion such a choice woul d represent an
additional reason not to enter i nto a doctri ne o| number whose
overa| l e||ectisto makethep|aceo|number,measuredbytheopera-
tional i ntui ti on o| a subj ect, i nexorab| y hnite. For the domain o|
number i s rather an ontological prescri pti on i ncommensurable with
anysubj ect and i mmersed i nthe i nhnity o|i nhniti es.
J. I 9. Theprob| emnowbecomes. howtothi nknumberwhi |stadmit-
ting, agai nst Lei bni z, that there are rea| i ndiscerni b| es, against the
i ntui ti onists, that numberpersistsand doesnotpass, andagai nstthe
|oundati onal use o| the subj ecti ve theme, that number excecds al l
hnitude ?
4
LCUCKHU
4. I. Dedekind introduces hi sconcept o| numberwi thi n the |rame-
work o|what we woul d today cal l a ' naive' theory o|sets. ' Naive'
because a theory o| mul ti pl icities is advanced that recapitulates
various presupposi ti ons about thi ngs and about thought. ' Naive'
meaning, in |act. phi l osophical .
Dedeki nd states expl i ci tl y, in the openi ng o|hi s text Tbe Nature
andMeaningofNumbers, that heunderstands 'by tbingevery obj ect
o| our thought' ,
,
and, a l ittle later, that, when di ||erent things are
' |orsomereasonconsi dered|rom acommonpoi nto|view,associ ated
in the mi nd, we say that they |orm a system S' .

A system i n Dede-
ki nd' s sense is there|ore quite si mpl y a set i n Cantor' s sense. The
space o| Dedeki nd' s work i s not the concept as i n Frege , but,
di rectly, the pure mul ti ple, a col lection that counts |or one as a
system obj ects o| thought.
4. 2. Dedeki nddevelopsa conceptiono|numberthat l i keCantor' s
isessenti al l yordina|. Wesaw compare 2. 3 that Frege' sconception
was essential l ycardina| proceeding vi a bi uni vocal correspondences
between extensi onso|concepts . What i sthesigni hcanceo|this di s-
ti nction? Intheordi nal view, numberi sthoughtasa l i nki na chai n,
itisanelemento|a total order. | nthecardi nal view, iti sratherthe
marko|a' purequantity' obtai nedthroughtheabstractiono|domai ns
o|obj ectshavi ng'thesamequantity' . Theordi nal numberisthought
accordingtotheschemao|asequence,thecardi nal number,accord-
ingtothato|a measurement.
JZ LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
4. J. Dedeki nd a|hrms that i nhnite number the totality o| whole
numbers,Iorexampl e recedes, i nconstructi on, hnitenumber each
whol e number, its successor, and so on . Thus the exi stence o| an
i nhnite i ndetermi nate system, and then the particul arexistence o|
N theseto|natural whole numbers |orm thecontentso|the para-
graphs numbered66 and 72 i n Dedeki nd' stext,whereasa resultas
apparently elementary as 'every number M i s di ||erent |romthe |ol -
l owi ngnumber M

comes onl y i nparagraph S I .

Dedeki ndi s a true modern. He knows thatthe i nhnite issim|er
than the hnite,thatit isthe most general attri bute o|being,an intu-
ition |rom which Pasca| had al ready drawn radica| consequences ~
andwasthehrstto do so ~ as to the si te o| thesubj ect.
4. 4. Dedeki ndhrsto|al|i nvitesustoacceptthephi l osophi cal concept
o|' system' , orany mul ti pl icity whatsoever compare4. I . Thepri n-
ci pa| operator wi l l then be, as i n Frege ( 2. J , the i dea o|bi uni vocal
correspondencebetweentwosystems. Dedeki nd, however,wi|lmake
use o|it in a total l ydi ||erentwaythan di dFrege.
Let' snoteinpassi ngthatthebi uni vocalcorrespondence,bi j ection,
isthekeynotiono|all thethi nkerso|numbero|thisepoch. |torga-
ni ses Frege's thought, Cantor' s and Dedeki nd' s.
4. 5. Dedeki ndca| | sthe|uncti on, orcorrespondence, a 'trans|orma-
ti on' ,
-
and what we would ca| l a bi j ective |unction or a bi univocal
correspondence he ca| l s a ' si mi l artrans|ormation' .

In any case, we
are deal i ng with a |unctionj which makes everyelemento|a set or
system Scorrespondtoanelement andoneonl y o|asetS, i nsuch
a waythat.
~ to two di ||erent elements b andb_ o| S wi l l correspond two di |-
|erent e|ements f s andj, b_ o| S',
~ everyelemento| S

is the correspondent,throughj, o| an element

o|S.
A distinct today we woul d s ay i nj ecti ve |uncti on is a |unction
that compl i es onl ywith the hrstcondi ti on.
Evidently, such |uncti ons can be dehned ' i n' a system S, rather
than ' between' a system S and another system S'. Functi ons or
trans|ormati ons o| thi s type make every e| ement o| S correspond
to an e| ement o| S ei ther another el ement or the same one. the
LLLLF1WL JJ
|unctioncoul dbethe|unctiono|identity,atleast|ortheelementi n
questi on .
4. 6. Take, then, a system S, an appl icationj not necessari l yoneo|
l i kenessor a bi univocal one o| St oitsel |,ands, anelemento| S. We
wi l l cal l the cbain o|the element s |or the appl ication j, the set o|
val ueso|the|unctionobtai ned byiteratingitstarting|rom s. Sothe
chai no|s|orji sthesetwhoseelementsare. s, f s , f f s , f ff s , . . . ,
etc.
We are not necessari l y deal i ng here with an i nhnite iterati on. it
could very well be that, at a certai n stage, the val ues thus obtai ned
wouldrepeatthemselves. Thi si sevi dentl ythecasei |S ishnite,si nce
the possi bl e val ues, which are the elements o| S the appl ication j
operates |rom S wi thi nS , wi l l beexhausted a|tera hnite numbero|
stages. utitwoul dal sobethecasewereonetocomeacrossa val ue
o|the |unctionj where, |or , j is identical . ecausethenf ,
andthere|oref f f . The|unction ba|ts at.
4. 7. Wewi l l saythat a system N is thi s i s Dedeki nd' s expressi on
sim|y innite i |thereexi sts a trans|ormationjo|N wi thi nN that
complieswi ththethree |ol l owi ngcondi ti ons.
I The appl ication j o| N wi thi n N is a di stinct appl icati on c.
4. 5 .
2 N is the chai no|oneo| its elements,which Dedeki nddenotes by
I , andwhi ch he cal l sthe base-e|emento| N.
3 The base-element I is not the correspondent through j o| any
element o| N. | n other words, |or any n which i s part o| N,
| n = I . the |unctionj never ' returns' to I .
Wecan|orma si mpl eenough i mageo|suchanN. We 'start' with
theelement I. We know condi ti on 3 that j( I is an element o|N
di ||erent |rom I . Next we see thatff I is di ||erent |rom I which
isnevera val ue |or [. ut, equal l y, ff I i s di ||erent |rom f I . |n
|act,the|unctionj condi ti on I isa di stincttrans|ormati on~ sotwo
di ||erentelementsmustcorrespond,throughj, todi ||erentel ements.
|romthe |act that I is di ||erent |romjI it |ol lows thatj(I is di |-
|erent |romj( j( I . More general l y, every element obtained through
the iteration o||unction j wi l l be di ||erent |rom all those that ' pre-
ceded' it. And,since N condi ti on2) isnothingotherthanthechai n
thus |ormed, N wi l l be composed o| an ' i nhnity' i n the i ntuitive
sense o|elements, all di ||erent, ordered by |unctIon j, i n the sense
that each element ' appears' through an additional step o| the
J4 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
process that begi ns with ! and is conti nued by repeatedly appl yi ng
operationf.
4. 8. The ' system' N thus dehned i s the |ace of number. Why?
ecauseal l theusual ' numerical ' mani pu| ati onscanbedehnedonthe
elements n o|such a set P.
yvi rtue o|t he|unction f, wecanpass without di |hculty t othe
concept o|the ' successor' o|a number. i |n i s a number, f n i s its
successor. It i shere thatDedeki nd' s' ordi nal ' orientation comes into
e||ect. |unction f, vi a the medi ati on o| the concept o|the chai n, is
that whi ch dehnes N as the space o|a total order. The hrst ' poi nt'
o| thi s order i s obvi ousl y I . For phi losophi cal reasons compare
I . I 7 , Dedeki ndpre|ers a denotation begi nningwith I to one begin-
ni ng wi th 0, ' ! ' denotes the hrst link o| a chain, whereas zero is
' cardi na| ' i n its vcry being. it marks l ack, the cl ass o| a| | empty
extensi ons.
Wi th ! and the operation o|successi on it wi l l be easytoobtai n,
hrstl y, the pri mi ti ve theorems concerning the structure o| the
ordero|numbers,andthenthedehnition o|arithmeticaloperati ons,
addi ti on and mul ti p|i cati on. On the so| e basi s o| the concepts
o| ' system' or set and o| ' si mi l ar trans|ormati on' or bi uni vocal
correspondence , the ' natural ' ki ngdom o| numeri cal ity will be
rediscovered.
4. 9. A systemN, structured by a |unctionfwhichcompl ieswiththe
three condi ti ons above 4. 7 wi l l be cal |ed ' a system o|numbers' , a
pl ace o| the set o| numbers. Toci te Dedeki nd.
I |, i n t hc consi dcrati on o| a si mp| y i nhni tc systcm N, sct i n ordcr by
a trans|ormati on j, wc cnti rc| y ncg|cct thc spcci a| charactcr o| thc c| c
mcnts, si mp| y rctai ni ng thci r di sti ngui shabi | i ty and taki ng i nto account
on| y thc rc| ati ons to onc anothcr i n whi ch thcy arc p| accd by thc ordcr
sctti ng trans|ormati on j, thcn arc thcsc c| cmcnts ca||cd natura/ numbers
or ordina/ numbers or si mp| y numbers, and thc basc-c| cmcnt ! i s ca| |cd
thc base-number o| thc number-series N. Wi th rc|crcncc to this |rcci ng
thc c|cmcnts |tom cvcry othcr contcnt abstracti onl , wc arc j usti hcd i n
ca| | i ng numbcrs a |rcc crcation o| thc human mi nd.
Theenthusi astictoneleavesnoroom|ordoubt. Dedeki ndi scon-
sci ouso|having,with hi s pure| y|uncti onal andordi nal engendering
o| ' system' S, torn numberaway|romany|orm o|externa|j urisdic-
ti on, i nthedi rectiono|purethought. Thi swasal readythetone,and
these the stakes, o|the ' procl amation' that appeared i n the Pre|ace
tothe hrstedi ti ono|hi spamphlet. 'Inspeaki ngo|arithmetic algebra,
LLLLF1WL J5
anal ysi s asaparto|l ogic,Imeantoi mpl ythatIconsi derthenumber
concept to be entirely i ndependent o| the notions or i ntui ti ons o|
spaceandti me, thatI consi deritmore asan immediate resul to|the
l aws o| thought. ' Thi s i s a text that, as wi l l be appreci ated, l ends
i tsel | to a Kanti an i nterpretati on. the whol e probl em |or modern
thinkers o| number is to navigate within the triangle Pl ato~Kant-
Lei bni z. In dehning, not ' a' number, but N, the si mpl y i nhnite
'system' o|numbers,Dedeki ndconsi ders, with legiti mate pri de,that
he hasestabl ishedhi msel|, by meanso|the powero|thought alone,
inthe intel l i gi bl e pl ace o|numerical i ty.
4. I0. | n|ormed by Frege' s di |hcul ti es, whi ch do not concern hi s
concept o|zeroand o|number, but the transi ti on |rom conceptto
existence orthe j uri sdiction o|l anguage over being, we ask. does a
system o| numbers,a ' si mpl yi nhnite' system N, exist Or wi l l some
unsuspected ' paradoxes' come to temper, |or us, Dedeki nd' s intel-
lectua|enthusi asm?
4. I I . Dedeki nd is evidently concerned about the exi stence o| hi s
system o| number. |n order to establ i sh i t, he proceeds i n three
steps.
! Intrinsicdehni ti on, wi thnorecoursetophi l osophyortoi ntui ti on,
o|whatan i nhnitesystem orset i s.
2 Demonstration thi s, as we shal l see, highl y specul ati ve o| the
existence o|an i nhnite system.
3 Demonstration o| the |act that al l i nhnite systems 'contain as
a properparta si mpl yi nhnite system N' .
These three steps permit the |ol l owi ng concl usi on t o be drawn.
si nceatl eastonei nhnitesystemexists,andeveryi nhnitesystem has
asa subsystem anN ~ a si mpl y i nhnitesystemor ' place o|number'
~ thenthi spl aceexi sts. Whichistosay. numberexists .Thei deathat
' arithmetic shoul d be a part o|logic' 'si gni hesthat, by meanso|the
conceptual work o|pure thoughtal one, I can guarantee theconsi s-
tency o|an intel l igi bl e place o|numerical ity, and the e||ective exi s-
tence o|sucha pl ace.
4. IZ. Dedeki nd' s dehni ti on o| an i nhnite set is remarkabl e. He
himsel| was very proud o|it, and with good reason. He notes that
'thedehnitiono|thei nhnite. . . |ormsthecoreo|mywholei nvestiga-
tion. Al l other attempts that have come to my knowl edge to di sti n-
gui shthei nhnite|romthehniteseemtometohavemetwithsol i ttle
J LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
success that I thi nk | may be permitted to |orgo any cri ti que o|
them. '
|
'
Thi sdehni ti on o| the i nhnite systematises a remark al ready made
by Cal i leo. there i s a bi uni vocal correspondence between the whole
numbers andthe numbers that are their squares. Su|hceto say, f n
n
,
. However, the square numbers constitute a proper part o|the
whole numbers a proper part o|a set is what we call a part that i s
di ||erent |rom the whol e, a trul y ' parti al ' part . It seems, there|ore,
in exami ning i ntui ti vel y i nhnite sets, that there exist bi univocal cor-
respondences between the sets as a whol e and one o| thei r propet
parts. Thi spart,then, has'as many' elementsasthesetitsel|. Cal i leo
concl udedthat itwasabsurdtotrytoconceiveo|actual i nhnitesets.
Since an i nhnite set is ' as large' contai ns ' asmany' elements asone
o|its proper parts,thestatement 'thewhol eisgreater than the part'
isapparent|yfa|sei nthecaseo|i nhnitetotal ities. Now,thisstatement
i san axi omo|Eucl i d' s|ements, and Cal i leo didnot think itcoul d
be renounced.
Dedeki ndaudaci ousl ytrans|ormsthi s paradox intothedenition
o|i nhnite sets. 'A system S is sai dto be innite when it is si mi l arto
a proper part o|itsel |. In the contrary case, S is said to be a nite
system. '

'
emember that, i n Dedeki nd' s termi nol ogy, 'system'
meansset, andthesi mi l ari ty o|twosystemsmeansthata bi uni vocal
correspondenceexists betweenthem .
4. I J. The most stri ki ng aspect o| Dedeki nd' s dehnition i s that it
determi nes i nhnityositice|y, and subordinates the hnite negatively.
This i s its especi al l y modern accent, such as i s al mostalways |ound
in Dedeki nd. An i nhnite system has a property o| an existenti al
nature. thereexists a bi uni vocal correspondence between itandone
o|its properparts. Thehnite i sthat |or which such a property does
notobtain. The hnite is si mpl ythatwhi ch is noti nhnite, andal l the
posi tive si mpl ici ty o| thought hi nges on the i nhnite. This intrepid
totalsecul ari sationo|thei nhnitei sagesturewhosevi rtueswe inept
parti sans o|' hnitude' , wherein our rel igi ous dependencecan sti l l be
read have notyetexhausted.
4. I4. The tbird poi nt o| Dedeki nd' s approach that every i nhnite
system contai ns as one o| its parts a system o| type N, a pl ace o|
number, sce 4. I I i sa per|ectl yelegant proo|.
Suppose that a system S is i nhni te. Then, given the dehniti on o|
i nhnite systems, there exists a bi uni vocal correspondencefbetween
S and one o|its proper parts S. In other words a bi j ective |unction
fthatmakeseveryelemento|b correspondtoanelemento|b
'
. Si nce
LLLLF1WL J7
b
'
isa roperpart o|b, there isat leastoneelemento|b that is not
in the part b
'
otherwi se b b
'
, and b
'
i s not a ' proper' part . We
choosesuchanelement,andcall it I . Considerthechain o|! |orthe
|unctionf |or ' chain' c. 4. 6 . We knowthat.

f is a di stinct i nj ective trans|ormati on, or |uncti on, si nce it is

preciselythebi univocal correspondencebetween b andb
'
, andal l
bi uni vocal correspondence i sdi stinct,

! certai nl y does not correspond through fto any other term o|

thechai n, si nce we have chosen I |rom outside o|b
'
, andfon|y
makes e|ements ofS

corresondto elements o| b. An elements

suchthatf s I there|orecannotexistin thechai n. |n thechai n,
the|unction never ' returns' to ! .
Thechai no | I |orj in b i s, then, asi mpl yi nhnitesetP. itcompl ies
withthethree conditions set |or such anP in 4. 7above.
We aretherebyassuredthat,ifaninnitesystem b exists, then an
N,apl aceo|number,al soexi sts aspart o|thatb. Dedeki nd' sthesi s
i sultimatelyas|ol lows. iftbeinniteexists,numberexists.Thi spoi nt
taki ng account o|the ordi nal dehni ti on o|number as the chai n o|
I |or a si mi l artrans|ormati on, and o|the dehni ti on o|the i nhni te
isexactlydemonstrated.
4. I 5. utdoes the i nhniteexist ? There l i es the whol equesti on. Thi s
is pointtwoo|Dedeki nd' s approach, where we seethat, for Dede-
kind, tbe innite, uon ubicb tbe existence of number deends,
occuies tbe|ace ubicb for Frege is occuiedbyzero.
4. I6. Toconstructthe proo|uponwhi chhence|orthal l wi l l rest the
consi stency andtheexistence o|an inhnite system orset , Dedeki nd
bri skl y canvasses al l hi s i ni ti al phi l osophi cal presupposi ti ons the
thi ngasobj ecto|thought . O|course, thesepresupposi ti onsal ready
quietly prop up the very idea o| a 'system' col lection o| anythi ng
whatsoever . ut,sei zed bythesuperbl y smooth sur|ace o|the sub-
sequentdehniti ons chai n, si mpl yi nhnitesetandproo|s, wehadthe
timeto l etthi s |ragi l ity sl i p |rom ourmi nds. Wecoul ddo no better
than tocite here Dedeki nd' s ' proo|' o|what i s put |orward bl ithel y
asthe'theorem' o|paragraph 66. `
,
66. Tbeorem Thcrc cxi st i nhni tc systcms.
lroof My own rca| m o| thoughts, i . c. thc tota| i ty 5 o| a| | thi ngs, whi ch
can bc obj ccts o| my thought, i s i nhni tc. Ior, i | b si gni hcs an c| cmcnt
o| 5, thcn i s thc thought b
r
that b can bc an obj cct o| my thought, i tsc| |
J8 LLWLPL\L1Lb! LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
an cl cmcnt o| 5. I| wc rcgard thi s as trans|orm [, s o| thc cl cmcnt s,
thcn has thc trans|ormati on [ o| 5, thus dctcrmi ncd, thc propcrty that
thc trans|orm 5 i s a part o| 5, and 5 i s ccrtai nl y a propcr part o| 5,
bccausc thcrc arc cl cmcnts i n 5 c. g. my own cgol whi ch arc di ||crcnt
|rom cvcry such thought s and thcrc|orc arc not contai ncd i n 5.
Ii nal l y i t i s c|car that, i | b and b_ arc di ||crcnt cl cmcnts o| 5, thcir
trans|orms b j
r
and s arc al so di ||crcnt, that thcrc|orc thc trans|orma
ti on [ i s a di sti nct si mi l arl trans|ormati on. Hcncc 5 i s i nhnitc, which
was to bc provcd.
4. I 7. Once our stupor di ssi pates but it is o| the same order as
that which gri ps us i n reading the hrst propositions o| Spi noza' s
tbics , we must proceed to a close exami nation o| thi s proo| o|
exi stence.
4. I 8. Some technical speci hcs. The |orce o| the proo| lies i n the
consi derati ono|thecorrespondencebetweenan' obj ecto|mythought'
andthethought 'thi si sanobj ecto|mythought' ~ thati stosay,the
correspondencebetueena tbougbtandtbe tbougbtoftbattbougbt,
orreection~ as a |uncti onoperating between elementso|theseto|
my possi bl e thoughts i n |act, we may as wel l i denti|y a ' possi bl e
obj ect o|my thought' wi th one possi bl e thought . Thi s |unction is
' di sti nct' wewoul dnowsayi nj ecti ve , becauseitpossessestheprop-
erty which bi uni vocal correspondences al so possess that two di s-
tinct el ements always correspond vi a the |unction to two distinct
elements. Civen two thoughts whose obj ects di sti ngui sh them |rom
each other,the twothoughtso|these thoughtsare di stinct theyal so
have di sti nct obj ects, si nce they thi nk o|di sti nct thoughts . Conse-
quently there i s a bi uni vocal correspondence between thoughts in
general and thoughts o|the type ' thought o|a thought' . Or, i |you
pre|er,therei ssuchacorrespondencebetweenthoughtswhoseobj ect
isanythi ngwhatsoeverandthoughtswhoseobj ecti sathought. Now
thi ssecondset|ormsa proper parto|theseto|al l possi bl ethoughts,
si nce there are thoughts which are not thoughts o| thoughts. the
stri ki ngexampl eDedeki ndgives i swhat hecal l s 'the ego' . Thusthe
set o|al l my possi bl ethoughts, being in bi uni vocal correspondence
with one o|its proper parts, i s i nhnite.
4. I9. Dedeki nd' s approach is a singu|ar combination ofDescartes '
Cogito and tbe idea oftbe idea in Sinoza.
Thestartingpoi nt is the veryspace o| the Cogito, as 'closed' con-
hguration o|all possible thoughts, exi stenti al pointo|purethought.
|t i scl ai med but only the Cogito assures uso|thi s that something
like theset o|all my possi bl ethoughts exists.
LLLLF1WL J
From Spinoza' scausal ' seri al i sm' regardlesso|whetherornothe
hguredi nDedeki nd' shi storicalsources aretaken boththeexi stence
o|a ' paral l e| i sm' which al lows usto i denti |y si mple i deas by way o|
their obj ect Spinoza says . through the body o|which the idea i s an
idea , andthe exi stence o|a reHexive redoubl i ng, which secures the
exi stence o| 'complex' ideas, whose obj ect is no longer a body, but
anotheridea. For Spinoza, as |or Dedeki nd, thi sprocess o|reHexive
redoubl ingmustgo toinnity. An idea o| an idea orthethoughto|
a thoughto|anobj ect isan idea. Sothereexi sts an ideathat i sthe
i deao|thei deao|thei deao|a body, andsoon.
Al l o|these themes haveto be i np| acei n order |or Dedeki ndto
beabl e to conc|ude the ex| stence o| an i nhnite system. There must
bea ci rcumscri bed ' pl ace' , representableunderthe si gn o|the One,
o|theseto|my possi bl e thoughts. We recogni se here the soul , the
'thi nking thi ng' as paradigmatical l y establ i shed by Descartes, i n its
exi stenceandessence pure thought , intheCogito. An idea mustbe
identi habl ethrough itsobj ect,sothattwo di ||erentideascorrespond
totwodi ||erentobj ects.thi sal oneauthorisesthebi uni vocal character
o|thecorrespondence. And, ul ti mately, it must be thatthe reHexive
processgoestoinhnity,since,i |itdi dnot,there wouldexi stthoughts
with no correspondent through the |uncti on, thoughts |or which
therewerenothoughtso|thosethoughts. Thi swouldrui ntheargu-
ment,since it woul d no l onger be establ i shed that to ecery element
o|theseto|my possiblethoughts S there correspondsanel emento|
theseto|my reHexive thoughts S' . Ultimatel y~ above al l , I woul d
say~ there must be at l eastonethoughtthatisnotreHexive,that is
nota thoughto|a thought. Thi s al oneguarantees thatS
'
, the seto|
reHexive thoughts, i s a roer part o| S, the set o| my possi ble
thoughts.Thi stime,werecognise in thi shxedpoi nto|di ||erencethe
Cogitoassuch~ whatDedeki ndcal l s' myownego' . Tbatubicbdoes
nota||ou itse|fto be tbougbt as tbougbt ofa tbougbt is tbe act of
tbinking itse|[ tbe `l tbink '. The ' Ithi nk' is non-decomposab|e, i t is
i mpossi ble to grasp it as a thought o|anotber thought, si nce every
otherthought presupposes it.
Itisthere|orenoexaggerationtosaythat|orDedeki nd,ultimately,
numberexists in so |ar as there i s the Cogitoas pure poi nt o|exis-
tence,underlyingal l reHection speci hcal l y, there i san' Ithi nkthatl
think' , but itsel | situated outsi de o| al l reHecti on. The exi stenti al
|oundation o|the i nhnite, and there|ore o| number, i s what Sartre
cal l sthe ' pre-reHexive Cogito' .
Andhere we di scover a variant o||acques-Al ai n Mi l ler' s thesi s.
whatsubtendsnumberisthesubject.Thedi ||erencei sthat, whereas
|or Mi l ler it i sthe ' process o|engendering' o|numberthat requi res
40 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
the |unction o| the subj ect, |or Dedeki nd it is the existence o| the
i nhniteasitspl ace. The|regeanprogrammeo|theconceptualdeduc-
ti ono|zeroandtheDedeki ndi anprogrammeo|thestructuraldeduc-
tion o|the i nhnite l ead backto thesame point. thesubj ect, whether
as i nsi stence o| lack or as pure point o|exi stence. To the Lacani an
subj ectcan be ascri bed thegenesis o|zero,tothe Cartesi an subj ect,
the exi stenceo|thei nhnite. As i|twoo|thethreegreat modernchal -
lenges o| thi nking number zero, the i nhnite, the down|al l o| the
One , once the thi rd i s assumed in the gui se o| a theory o| sets,
can onl y be resolved through a radi cal empl oyment o| that great
bi|osobica|category o|modernity. thesubj ect.
4. Z0. I couldsi mpl ysaythat,j ustasI amnotenougho|a Leibnizian
to|ol l owFrege,I amequal l yneitherCartesi annorSpi nozistenough
to |ol l owDedeki nd.
4. Z . AgainstDedeki nd' sSpi nozi sm. Far|romthei deao|ani nhnite
recurrence o|the thoughto|a thoughto|a thoughto|a thought o|
a thought, and so on, being abl eto |ound the exi stence o|the pl ace
o|number, itresuoses it. |n |act, we bace no experience o|thi s
type. Onl y the exi stence ~ and consequent|y the thought
=
o| the
sequenceo|numbersal lowsustorepresent,andtomakeanumerical
hctiono|,areHecti onwhichreHectsitsel |endlessly. Theverypossi bi l -
i tyo|statinga ' thought' at, say, the|ourth orhhh levelo|reHection
obvi ousl yreliesonanabstractknowl edgeo|numbersasacondi ti on.
As to the i dea o| a reHection that 'goes to i nhnity' , thi s obvi ousl y
contai ns preci sel y what we are tryi ng to demonstrate, namel y the
e||ect o|i nhni ty in thought. ane||ectwhose only known medi um is
the mathemati cs o|number.
4. ZZ. Asregardsquesti onso|existence,Spi nozahi msel |madecertai n
notto proceed as Dedeki nddoes. Heneversoughtto i n|ertheexi s-
tenceo|thei nhnite|romtherecurrenceo|i deas. Iti s, rather,precisely
becauseheostu|atedani nhni tesubstancethathewasabl etoestab-
lish thatthe sequence that goes |rom the idea o|a body to ideas o|
ideaso|i deas,andsoon, i si nhnite. |orSpi noza,andhei squitej usti-
hed i n this, the exi stence o|the i nhniteisan axiom. Hi s problem is
rather ' on the other si de' , the si de o| the body or, in Dedeki nd' s
terms, that o| the obj ect . For, i | there is a rigorous paral lel i sm
between the chai n o|ideas and the chai n o|bodies, thentheremust
be, corresponding to the idea o|an idea, the ' body o|a body' , and
we are unable to grasp what the reality o| such a thi ng might be.
Dedeki nd evades this probl em because the place o| thi nking he
LLLLF1WL 4
postulates assumes Cartesi an cl osure. t he corporeal exteri or, the
extensiveattribute,does not i ntervene i n it. ut, in seeki ngto draw
|romSpi nozistrecurrenceaconcl usi ve ( andnon-axi omatic thesi son
the inhnite, heproducesonl y a vi ci ousci rcl e.
4. 2J. Against Dedeki nd' s Cartesi ani sm. It is essenti al to the proo|
that ecery thought can be the obj ect o| a thought. Thi s theme i s
i ncontestabl y Cartesi an. the ' l thi nk' subtends the bei ngo|i deas i n
generalasa ' materi al ' o|thought, anditiscl earthatthere i snoidea
thatcannotbe a thi nkable idea,thatistosay sincewe are speaki ng
o|theseto|mypossi bl ethoughts vi rtual l yactual i sabl easobj ect o|
my thought. ut obvi ousl y thi s excl udes the possi bi l ity that ' i t'
, ,
could thi nk wi thout my thi nki ng that I thi nk that thought, and
wi thoutitbei ngevenossib|eto doso. Dedeki ndis Cartesi an in hi s
excl usi ono|theunconsci ous, whi ch, sinceFreud, weknowtothi nk,
andtothi nkinsucha waythatsomeo|i tsthoughtscan be dehned
precisely as those that l cannot thi nk. ' Unconsci ous thoughts' are
precisely those unable, at least di rectly, to become obj ects o| my
thought.
More general l y, it i s doubt|ul , |or a contemporary phi l osopher,
whethertruethoughts,thosethatare i ncl udedinageneri cprocedure
o|truth,coul deverbeexposedassuch inthehgureo|thei rreHecti on.
This woul d be to i magi ne that thei r transl ati on onto the hgure o|
knowledge whi chisthehgureo|reHecti on iscoextensivewiththem.
Now the mostsol i di deao|contemporaryphi l osophyis preci sel ynot
to understand the process o|truth exceptas a ga i n knowledge. I|
'thought' means. i nstance o|the subj ect in a truth-procedure, then
therei snothoughto|thi sthought,becauseitcontai nsnoknowl edge.
Dedeki nd' sapproach|oundersontheunconsci ous, anddoesnothol d
hrml yenoughtothedi stinction between knowledge andtruth.
4. 24. Descartes hi msel | i s more prudent than Dedeki nd. He makes
certainnottoi n|erthei nhnite|romreHecti on, or|romtheCogitoas
such. He does not consi der, i n provi ng the exi stence o| Cod, the
tota|ityo|mypossi bl ethoughts,asDedeki nddoes. Onthecontrary,
hesingul arisesanidea,theideao|Cod, his l ocal argumentmi ghtbe
contrastedwithDedeki nd' sgl obal , orset-theoretical , argument. Des-
cartes'problemi sel sewhere,itisaFregeanprobl em. howdowepass
|romconceptto existence? Forthi s, an argument positing a di spro-
portion betueen tbe idea andits|ace is necessary. the idea o|the
inhnite i swithout commonmeasure with its pl ace,whi ch i smysoul
=
or, i n Dedeki nd' sterms, the seto|my possi ble thoughts, because
thispl ace,graspedin itssubstanti al being,i shnite. Thesi ngul ari dea
4Z LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
o| the i nhnite must there|ore 'come |rom e| sewhere' , it must come
|rom a rea| i nhnity.
We can see how, in the end, Descartes' andDedeki nd' s positions
are reversed. ForDedeki nd, it i sthe pl ace thati s i nhnite, because it
must support reHection the capacity o| the Cogito in its going to
i nhni ty. For Descartes, it is the exteri or o| the p| ace Cod that is
i nhnite,si nce the pl aceo|mythought,guaranteed i nits beingbythe
Cogito, ishnite, and is there|orenot caab|e o|supportinga|onethe
idea o|the i nhnite. ut, i nseeking to break with the hni tude o|the
p|ace, Dedeki nd |orgets that this place could we|| be nothing but a
scene |abricated by an Other p| ace, or that thoughtcou| dwe| | hnd
its pri nci p| eon| y i na resuosition o|i nhnite number, o|which it
wou| d bethe hnite and i rreHexi ve moment.
4. 25. Immanent cri ti que. Dedeki nd' s starting point is 'the real m o|
a|| possible obj ects o|mythought' , which he i mmediate|ydecidesto
ca|l system S. utcan tbis domain beconsideredasa system, tbatis
to say, a set Do the ' possi bl e obj ects o| my thought' |orm a set, a
consistent mu|ti p| icity, whi ch can be counted as one |eaving asi de
the thorny question o| knowi ng ubatcarries outthi s accounting o|
mythoughts ? Isn' titratheran i nconsi stentmu| ti p| icity,in so |ar as
itstota|reco| |ectioni s, |orthoughtitse| |, preci se| yimpossi b|e? I|one
admits the Lacani an identihcati on o| the impossib|e and the rea| ,
wou| dn' tthe ' system' o|a|| possi b| e obj ects o|my thoughts bethe
rea| o|thought, i n the gui se o|the impossi bi l ity o|itscounti ng-|or-
one? e|oreestabl i shingthatthe' rea| mo|a|| possib|e obj ects o|my
thought' i s an i nhnite system, then, we must estab| i sh that it i s a
system a set at al l .
4. 26. In the same way in whi ch Russe| | ' s paradox comes to spoi |
Frege' sderi vati ono|numberonthebasi so|theconcept,the' paradox'
o|the set o|a|| sets~ a descendanto|the |ormer~ comes to break
Dedeki nd' s deduction o| the exi stence o| the i nhnite, and conse-
quent|y the deduction o|theexi stence o|N, the ' simp|y inhnite' set
whi chisthep| aceo|number. Conceptual l ysetout byDedeki ndwith
i mpeccab|ei n|erences,thep| aceo|numberdoesnotstandthetesto|
consistency, whi ch i sa| sothato|existence.
4. 27. Reasoni ng `d |a Dedeki nd' . Any system whatsoever a set ,
graspedi nabstracti on|romthesi ngu| arityo|i tsobj ectsor, asDede-
ki nd says, thought uni que| y according to 'that which di sti ngui shes'
these obj ects , thus, thei rsi mp| e be|ongingto a system andits laws ,
LLLLF1WL 4J
is obviously a possi bl e obj ect o|my thought. Consequentl y, within
the supposed system S o| a|l possi bl e obj ects o| my thought must
hgure, as a subsystem subset , the system o|all systems, the set o|
al l sets. y vi rtue o|thi s |act, thi s system o| al l systems i s i tsel | a
possi bl eobj ect o| mythought. Or, in si mpl ihedterms,thesystem o|
al l systems is a thought.
Now,thi s is an impossible situati on. In |act, a |undamental prin-
ci pleo|Dedeki nd' sdemonstrationhasitthateverythoughtgivesrise
to a thought o| thi s thought, which i s di ||erent |rom the ori gi nal
thought. Soi |thereexi sts a thoughto|theseto|al l sets, there must
exi stathoughto|thi sthought,ubicbisinS, theseto|al l mypossi ble
thoughts. S is then |arger thanthe set o| al l sets, si nce itcontai ns at
least one element the thought o| the set o| al l sets that does not
hgure in the set o| all sets. Whi ch cannot be, si nce S is a set, and
there|ore musthgure asanel ementintheseto|al l sets.
Or,onceagai n. considered as a set or system, S, thedomai n o|al l
thepossi bl eobj ectso|mythought,i sanelemento|theseto|al l sets .
Considered in its seri al or reHexive capacity, S overHows the set o|
al l sets,si nceitcontai nsthethoughto|thatthoughtwhi ch istheset
o|al l sets. S i sthusatoncei nside or' smal l er than' andoutsi de or
' l arger than' one o|i ts el ements. the thoughto|the seto| al l sets.
We must concl ude then, excl udi ng l ogi cal i nconsistency, ei ther that
theseto|al l sets, the system o|al l systems, isnota possib|e object
ofmy tbougbt,eventhoughwe havej ustthoughtit, or, morereason-
abl y, that the domai n o|al l possi bl e obj ects o|my thought is not a
system, or a set. ut, in that case, it cannot be used to support the
proo|o|theexi stence o|an i nhnite system.
4.28. Reasoning more mathematical l ynow. Suppose thatthe set o|
al l sets exists which i mp| ies necessari | y the exi stence as set o|the
domai no|al l possi bl eobj ectso|mythought . Then, since iti sa set,
wecanseparate Zermel o' saxi om, 2. I 2 , asanexi stentset, allo|the
elementsthathave a certai nproperty i ncommon. Taketheproperty
'notbeinganelemento|itsel |' . ymeans o|separationthis time, and
there|ore wi th the guarantee o| existence al ready i n pl ace, we ' cut
out' |romtheseto|al l sets, whichwe supposetoexi st,theseto|al l
thesetswhichdonotbel ongtothemselves. Thi ssetthenexi sts,whi ch
Pussel l ' sparadoxtel l susi si mpossi bl e admittingtheexistenceo|the
seto|al | sets whi ch do notbel ongto themsel ves leads di rectly to a
|ormal contradiction,c. 2. I I . So it is i mpossi bl ethatthe set o| a| l
sets shoul d exist, and a |orti ori thatthedomai n o|al l my possi bl e
thoughts coul d be a set.
44 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
4. 29. Dedeki nd' s attempt u| ti mate|y |ai | s at the same point as did
Frege' s. i nthetransi ti on|romconceptto assertiono|existence. And
attheroot o|the a||ai ri sthe same thing. FregeandDedeki ndboth
seek to deduce |rom ' pure |ogic' , or thought as such, not j ust the
operati ona| ru| cso|number,butthe|acto|itsexistence|orthought.
Now,j ust|iketheemptyset,orzero,tbeinniteui||notbededuced.
we havetodecide its exi stence axi omatical l y, whi chcomes down to
admitting that one takes thi s exi stence, not |or a construction o|
thought, but |or a |act o|eing.
The site o| number, whether we approach it, l i ke Frege, ' |rom
be| ow' , on the si de o| pure | ack, or, |ike Dedeki nd, ' |rom above' ,
|rom the si de o| i nhnity,cannot be estab| i shed |ogica| | y, by the pres-
sure o|thought a|one upon itse| |. There has to be a pure andsi mp|e
acknou|edgemento|itsexi stence.theAxi omo|the EmptySet|ounds
zero, and, asa resu| to|thi s, the hni te cardi na| sexist. TheAxiomo|
|nhnity |ounds the exi stence o|the i nhnite ordi na| s, and |rom there
wecanreturntotheexi stenceo|hniteordi nal s. Thecha| l engesposed
to the moderns bythethi nkingo|numbercannot be metthrough a
deduction, butonl ythroughadecision. Andwhatsubtendsthi sdeci -
si on, asto its veri di ca| i ty, relatesnei thertoi ntui ti onnorto proo|. |t
re|ates to the deci si on' s con|ormity to that whi ch being qua being
prescri bes to us. From the |act that the One i s not, it |o| |ows, with
regardto zero andthe i nhnite, that nothingcan be sai dotherthan.
theyare.
4. JO. Neverthel ess,wemustgiveDedeki ndi mmensecredi t|orthree
cruci a| ideas.
The hrstis that the best approach to number i s a general theory
o|the pure mu|ti p| e, and there|ore a theory o|sets. This approach,
anonto|ogica|one,entire|ydi sti ngui shes hi m|romtheconceptua| or
| ogi ci stapproach, as |ound in Frege.
The second i s that, wi thi n thi s |ramework, we must proceed in
' ordi na| ' |ashi on, erecting a sort o| uni versa| series where number
ui|| come to be grased. Certai n| y, the theory o|ordi na| s must be
removed|romitsoverdependenceontheideao|order,sti l l verymuch
present i n Dedeki nd. ecause, as | obj ected to|acques-A| ai n Mi l |er,
there isnoreasontopresumethatthebeingo|numberwi|l beawait-
ingusa| ongtheordered routethatwe proposeto it. Theconcepto|
thc ordi na| must be sti | | |urther onto| ogi sed, rendered |ess opera-
ti ona| , |essure|y serial .
Thethi rd o|Dedeki nd' sgreat i nspi red ideas i sthat, toconstruct
a modem thi nki ng o|number, a non-Creekthi nki ng,wemustbegin
with thc i nhnite. The |act thatit is vai nto try togi vethi s beginni ng
LLLLF1WL 45
the |orm o| a proo|o| exi stence i s u| ti mate|y a secondary matter,
compared tothe idea o|the begi nni ng itse| |. It i stru|y paradigmatic
to have understood that, i n order to thi nk hni te number, natura|
who| e number, it i s necessaryrstto thi nk, and to bring i nto exi s-
tence~ bywayo|adeci si onthatrespectsthehi stori a| natureo|bei ng,
in so|aras ourepochi s that o|the secu| ari sati on o|the i nhnite o|
whi chits numericisation i sthehrsti nstance ~ i nhnite number.
On these three poi nts, Dedeki nd i s tru| y the c| osest compani on,
andi ncertainrespectstheancestor,o|the|ather~ sti | | mi sunderstood
=
o|thegreat |aws o|ourthought. Cantor.
5
|C3HO
5. I . Peano' s work is certai n| y not comparabl e in pro|undity or in
novelty either to Frege' s or to Dedeki nd' s. Hi s success | ies more i n
thec| arihcationo|a symbol i sm, i nthehrmassuranceo|theconnec-
tion between |ogic and mathemati cs, and i na rea| ta|ent|ordiscern-
inganddenotingtheperti nentaxi oms. Onecannotspeako|number
wi thouttack| i ngthe|amous'Peanoaxi oms' atthei rsource,theyhave
becomethe re|erencetext|or any ki ndo||ormalintroductiononthe
natura| whole numbers.
5. 2. Eventhough, |romtheverybegi nningo|hi slrinci|esofAritb-
metic,

~ written, de| i ci ous| y, in Latin ~ Peano speaks o| ' questions

that pertai nto the |oundations o|mathematics' , whi ch hesays have
not recei ved a ' sati s|actory so| ution' ,
,
the approach he adopts i snot
so much a |undamenta| meditation as a 'technici sati on' o| proce-
dures, wi thaviewtoestab| i shingasorto|consensusonmani pu|ation
somethingi nwhi ch, in |act, hesucceeds per|ect|y . This i sthesense
in which we ought to understand the phrase. 'The di |hcu|ty has its
main source i n the ambi guity o|| anguage. '
,
To expound numberin
the c| arity o|a |anguage~ an artihci a| cl arity, certai nl y, but |egi b| e
and i ndubi tab| e~ thi s i swhat i satstake in Peano' swork.
5. 3. In termso| its content,theapproach is mode| l edon Dedeki nd' s.
We ' start' |rom an i ni ti a| term, whi ch, as with Dedeki nd, i s not
zero but one. We ' put to work' the successor |unction denoted in
Peanoaccordi ngtotheaddi ti vei ntui ti on. thesuccessoro|M i swritten
LPW\ 47
n+I .Were| yheavi | yoni nducti on, orreasoni ngbyrecurrence. ut,
whereasDedeki nd, whoworksi naset-theoreti ca| |ramework, deduces
theva| i dityo|thi sprocedure, in Peanoitis treatedpure| yand si mp| y
as anaxi om. Wedeci dethat.
=
i| I possesses a property,
=
and i| it is truethat,whenn possessesa property,thenn+ I a| so
possesses it,
=
then, a|| numbers n possess the property.
Armedwiththi sinductivepri nci p| eandwithpure|y|ogica| axi oms
whosepresentationhehasc| ari hed,Peanocandenea| | thec| assi ca|
structureso|thedomai no|who| enumbers. tota| orderanda|gebraic
operations addition, mu| ti p| ication .
5. 4. The axi omo|induction, oro|recurrence, marksthe di ||erence
i nthi nki ngbetweenPeanoand Dedeki ndon thecruci a| i ssue o|the
inhnite.Treatedasa simp|eoperati ona| pri nci p| e, recurrenceactua| | y
permits |egi s| ati on over an i nhnite tota| ity uitboutmaking mention
ofitsinnity.
Itisc| ear that there i s an i nhnity o|who| enumbers . To speak o|
' a| | ' thesenumbersthere|oremeanstospeako|anactua| i nhnity. ut
inPeano' saxi omaticapparatus,thisi nhnityisnoti ntroducedassuch.
The axiomo|recurrence permits us, |roma cerication , I possesses
the property and an i mp| icative roof( ifn possesses the property,
tben n + ! a|so possesses it, to conc|ude that 'a|| numbers possess
the property' , without having to i nqui re as to the extensi on o|thi s
' a| | ' . The universa| quantiher here masks the thought o| an actua|
inhnity.thei nhnite remai nsa | atent|orm, i nscri bed i nthequanti her
without beingre|eased intothought.
ThusPeanointroducestheconcepto|numberwi thouttransgress-
ingtheo| dprohi bitiononactua|i nhnity,aprohi bi ti onthatsti | | hangs
over our thoughteven as the | atter is summoned to its abo| i ti on by
themoderni nj unctiono|being. Peano' saxi omaticecadesthei nhnite,
or exp|icit mention o|the i nhnite.
|or Dedeki nd, on the other hand, not on| y the concept o| the
inhnite, but a|so its exi stence, i s abso| ute|y cruci a| . Dedeki nd says
thi sexp|icit|y i na |etterto Ke|erstei n.
-
A|tcr thc csscnti al naturc o| thc si mpl y i nhni tc systcm, whosc abstract
typc i s thc numbcr scqucncc N, had bccn rccogni zcd in my anal ysi s
. . . thc qucstion arosc. docs such a systcm exist at al l i n thc rcal m o|
our i dcas Wi thout a logica| proo| o| cxi stcncc i t woul d always rcmai n
48 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW1\
doubt|ul whcthcr thc noti on o| such a systcm mi ght not pcrhaps
contai n i ntcrnal contradi cti ons. Hcncc thc nccd |or such proo|s.
5. 5. Peanodoes not broach questions o| exi stence. When a system
o|axi omsis app| iedtooperati ona| arrangements,we wi l | be ab|e, i|
necessary, to enqui re as to that system' s coberence, we need not
speculate on the being o|that whi ch i sinterrogated. Thevocabul ary
o|the 'thi ng' , or obj ect, common to Frege and Dedekind ( even i |it
i sa matter o|' mental thi ngs' i nthesenseo|Husser| ' snoematiccor-
re|ate i s droppcd i n Peano' s work, in |avour o|a somewhat 'post-
modem' sensi bi l ity where the sign reigns. For example, he writes. ' l
have denotedby si gns a|| i deasthatoccuri nthe pri nci p|es o|arith-
metic, so that every proposition is stated onl y by means o| these
si gns.
'
` l|the | atentmode| inDedeki ndand o|Frege i sphi |osophical
' phi | osophy as rigorous sci ence' , i n Peano it is di rect|y a|gebrai c.
' With these notati ons, every proposi ti on assumes the |orm and the
preci si onthatequati onshavei nalgebra. . . theproceduresaresi mi l ar
to those used i n sol vi ngequati ons. '
The ' economy o| number' proposed by Peano is an economy o|
signswhoseparadigmi sa| gebrai c,whosetransparencyisconsensual ,
andwhoseoperati onal e||ectivenessi sthere|orenoti ndoubt. Hethus
partici pates|orce|u| | yi nthatmovemento|thought,victorioustoday,
thaturests mathematics |rom its anti que phi | osophi ca| pedesta| and
represents itto usasagrammaro|signswhere al| thatmattersisthe
makingexp| i ci to|the code. Peano preparestheway |roma|ar~ by
el i mi natinga| l idea o|a being o|number, and, even more so,thato|
numberas being ~ |or Carnap' s maj or theses, which reduce mathe-
matics, treated as a ' |orma| l anguage' as opposed to empirical lan-
guages , nottoa science becauseaccordingto thi sconceptionevery
sciencemusthavean' obj ect' , buttothesyntaxo|thesciences.Peano
i s i nscri bed i n thetwentieth century's genera| movement o|thought
~ |orged, i n |act, attheendo|theni neteenthcentury
=
whosechar-
acteristicgesture is the destitution o| Platoni sm, in theguise o| that
which had a|ways been its basti on. mathematics, and especi a| | ythe
|dea o|number.
5. 6. We see here, as i |i n the pangs o| its bi rth, the rea| ori gi n o|
what Lyotard cal|s the ' | i nguistic turn' i n Western phi losophy, and
what | cal | therei gno|thegreatmodern sophi stry. i |it istruethat
mathematics, the highest expression o| pure thought, i n the hna|
anal ysi sconsistso|nothingbutsyntactica| apparatuses,grammarso|
signs, then a |orti ori a|l thought |a| l s under the constitutive rule o|
l anguage.
LPW\ 4
|tiscertai nthat,|orPlato,thesubordi nationo|| anguageto' thi ngs
themselves' , as deal t wi th |or examp| e i n the Craty|us, has as its
horizon o|certitudetheontol ogi cal vocati ono|thematheme. There
is no uphol di ng the pure empi re o| the sign i | number, which we
i ndicate with j ust a si mpl e stroke, is, as Pl ato thought, a |orm o|
ei ng. Conversel y, i| number i s nothi ng but a grammar o| speci al
signs,ruledbyaxi omswi thno|oundati oninthought, thenitbecomes
probablethatphi losophymustbe,hrstand|oremost(as i nDeleuze's
readingo|Ni etzsche' s' di agnostics' , a thi nkingo|the|orce o|si gns.
Eithertruth orthe arbitrariness o|the sign andthe diversity o|syn-
tacticalgames.thi sisthecentra|choice|orcontemporaryphi losophy.
Number occupies a strategic posi ti on i n t hi s conHict, because i t i s
si multaneouslythemostgeneral ised basi so| thoughtandthatwhi ch
demands mostabruptlythe question o|its bei ng.
Peano' s axi omatic, poor in thought but strong i n its e||ects, a
grammarwhi chsubduesnumber,theorgani si ngpri nci p| eo|an oper-
ational consensus, a de|tmediationo|thei nhnite intothehni tudeo|
signs, represents something o| a l ucky hnd, a gi |t, |or modern
sophistry.
5. 7. Every purel y axi omatic procedure introduces undened signs,
whichcanonl ybepresented bycodihngthei rusageinaxi oms. Peano
is hard| y economi cal with these ' pri mi ti ve' si gns. there are |our, i n
|act ( you are remi nded that set theory has recourse to one sing| e
primitive sign q bel ongi ng,whi chdenotespresentation as such .
Among thc si gns o| ari thmcti c, thosc that can bc cxprcsscd by othcr
signs o| ati thmctic togcthcr wi th thc si gns o| logic rcptcscnt thc i dcas
that wc can dchnc. Thus, I havc dchncd all signs cxccpt |our . . . I |, as
I thi nk, thcsc cannot bc rcduccd any |utthcr, i t i s not possi bl c to dchnc
thc i dcas cxprcsscd by thcm through i dcas assumcd to bc known
prcvi ousl y. '
These|ouri rreduci bl esi gns are.
I The sign N, whi ch ' means number (ositice ubo|e number) ' .
2 The sign I , whi ch ' meansunity' .
3 The sign a + I , whi ch ' means tbesuccessorofa' .
4 The sign whi ch ' meansis equa|to' .
Peano thus exp|icitly renounces al l dehnition o|number, o|suc-
cession,ando|! . (Thecaseo|thesign mi ghtbetreatedseparatel y.
i t i s in poi nto| |act a logica| si gn, not an arithmetical one. Peano
50 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
hi mse| |writes. 'Weconsi derthi ssignasnew,a|thoughithasthe|orm
o|a sign o||ogic. '

' Evi dent|ythi si sthe price to be pai d|or opera-
tiona| transparency. Where |rege musters a|| thought towards
attempting to understand the revo| uti onary statement 'zero i s a
number' , Peanosi mp| ynotes ( it is the hrstaxi omo|hi ssystem . !
N, a |orma| corre| ati on between two undehned signs that ' means'
( but according to what doctrine o|meani ng? that ! i s a number.
Where Dedeki ndgenerates thep| ace o|numberasthespaceo|pos-
si b|eemp| oyment,ortherea| | yexistingi nhnitechai n, o|a bi univocal
|uncti on, Peano notes.
' '
a N a + ! N, an i mp| ication that
invo|ves three undehned signs, and which 'means' that, i | a i s a
number, its successoris a| soa number. The |orce o|the|etter is here
at the mercy o| meani ng. And the e||ect is not one o| obscurity,
but rather one o| an excessi ve | i mpi dity, a cumbersome levity o|
thetrace.
5. 8. In the poem, the obscure is born o| that which, as a breaki ng
open o|thesi gni heratthe | i mits o|| anguage,di ssemi natesthe |etter.
In Peano' s pure axi omatic, the retreat o|sense i ssues |rom the |act
that the |orce o| the |etter is turned back upon itsel|, and that it i s
on| yfrom outsidethatthoughtcancometo it. Peanowi shesto put
o|| any con|rontation with the | atent poem the absence o| whi ch
number ~ astra| hgure o| bei ng ( 'co| d with neglect and di suse, a
Conste| | ati on' ' ~ un|ai | i ngl yinstigatesandthee||ect o|whichFrege
and Dedeki nd unconsci ous| y preserve in the desperate attempt to
conj ure |orth into Presence now zero, now the i nhnite.
5. 9. Peano' s axiomatic is a shi ni ngsuccess story o| the tendency o|
ourti mes to see nothing in number except |or a network o|opera-
tions, a mani pu| ab|e |ogico|the sign. Number, Peanothinks, makes
signs aboutthe sign, or is the Sign o| si gns.
From thi s poi nt o| view, Peano i s as one with the idea that the
uni verseo|sciencereachesitsapexi nthe|orgetti ngo|being,homog-
enous with the reabsorption o| numerical ity i nto the unthought o|
techni ca| wi | l . Numberi stru| ymacbinic. Thus it can be mai ntained
thatthesuccess o|Peano' saxi omaticparticipates i nthegreatmove-
mentthathasgicenuthemathemetomodernsophistry,byunbi nd-
i ngit|roma| | onto|ogy and by s ituating itwi thi ntheso| e resources
o|| anguage.
5. IO. |twi l l beagreatrevengeuponthi soperationtodi scover,with
Sko|em and then Robi nson, '
,
the semantic |imits o|the grammar o|
si gnstowhi ch Peanohadreducedtheconcepto|number. We know
LPW\ 5
todaythatsuchanaxi omaticadmitso| ' non-standard' model s,whose
proper being di ||ers greatly |rom all that we i ntui ti vel y understand
by the idea o|natural whole number. SothatPeano' ssystemadmits
o| models where there exist ' i nhnitely | arge' numbers, or mode|s
whose type o|i nhnity exceeds the denumerabl e. Peanoarithmetic i s
suscepti ble to ' pathological ' interpretati ons, it does not have the
powertoestabl i sha uni vocal thoughtwi thi nthemachi ni smo|si gns.
Everyattempttoreducethemathemetothesol espati al i sedevidence
o|a syntaxo|signsrunsagroundontheobscureprodigal ityo|being
inthe |orms o|themul ti pl e.
5 . I I . The essence o| number wi l l not be spoken, ei ther as si mple
|orce o|countingando| its rules, or assovereigntyo|graphi sms. We
mustpass into itthrough a meditation on its bei ng.
N isnotan ' undehned' predicate, butthei nhnite placeo|exercise
o|that which succeeds the voi d (or zero , the exi stenti al seal whi ch
stri kes tbere where i t

-
i nsi sts on succeedi ng.
What' begi ns' is not the I as opaquesign o| ' uni ty' , butzero as
suture o|al l l anguage to the being o|the si tuati on whose l anguage
iti s.
Successi on i snotthe addi ti ve codi ngo|a + ! , but a si ngu| ardi s-
position o| certain numbers which are successors ratherthan thei r
succeeding, andwhi chare markedi nthei r bei ngbythi sdi spositi on.
Wemustknowal sothatzeroandthei nhni tearepreciselytbatubicb
doesnotsucceed, andthattheyaresoi nthei rverybei ng,i ndi ||erent
ways,although botharelocated, byvi rtueo|this |act,ontheshores
o|a Nothingness.
Number is neither that which counts, nor that wi th which we
count.Thisregimeo|numerical i tyorganisesthe|orgettingo|number.
Totbinknumberrequiresanoverturni ng. itisbecauseiti sanun|ath-
omable |orm o|beingthatnumberprescri bes to usthat|eeble |orm
o|itsapproximationthati scounti ng. Peanopresentsthei nscri ption
o|number, whi ch i s our i nhrmity, our hnitude, as the condi ti on o|
i tsbeing. utthere are more things, i nhnitely more, i nthe kingdom
o|Number,thanare dreamt o|i n Peano' sarithmeti c.

L3HtOt. `YCl l -LtOCtCOHCSS
3HU tDC LtUH3S
6. I . Theordi na| srepresentthegenera|onto|ogica|horizono|numer-
i ca| i ty. Fo| | owi ngthee| uci dati ono|theconcepto|theordi na| , with
which wesha| | present|yoccupyourse| ves, this pri nci p|e wi|lgovern
everythi ngthat |o| |ows, and it i s we| | sai dthat in thi s sense Cantor
isthetrue|oundero|thecontemporarythi nkingo|number. |n|act,
Cantor

consi dered that the theory o|ordi na| s constituted the very
hearto|hi sdi scovery. Today,theuork/ngmatbematic/an, |orwhom
it su|hces tbattbere aresets and numbers and who does not worry
at all aboutwhattheyare,thi nkso|theordi nal sratherassomething
o|a curi osi ty. We must see i n this mild disdain one o|the |orms o|
submi ssi ono|themathematici an, i nso|arasheorsheisexc| usive|y
uorking, to the i mperatives o| socia| numerica| ity. Speci a| ists i n
mathemati ca| l ogi corsettheory are doubt|ess an excepti on, even i |
they themsel ves o|ten regret thi s excepti on. i n spite o| themse|ves,
theyarec| osesttothei nj unctiono|ei ng, and |or themtheordi na| s
areessenti a| .
6. 2. l have sai d, i n connection with Dedeki nd, that, i n ourpresent
phi | osophi ca| di scourse,wemust assume ascomp|etean 'onto|ogisa-
tion' o| the ordi na| s as possi b| e. The presentation o| this concept
by Dedeki nd or Cantor relates it essenti a| | y to the notion o| wel | -
orderedness ~ something sti | l very c| ose to a si mp| e seri al or
operati ona| i ntui ti on o|number.
6. J. Everyschoo| boyknowsthat,giventwodi ||erentwholenumbers,
oneo|them is largerandtheothersmal ler. And heknowsal sothat,
LPW\. `YLLL-\LLLL WLbb` PWL mL \L1WPLb 5J
given a ' bunch' o| numbers, there is oneandoneon| y that is the
sma| |esto|the bunch.
|romthi sseri a| know|edge, i|oneabstractsoutits genera| proper-
ties,theconcepto|thewe| | -ordered setcan be deve| oped.
6. 4. A ' we| | -ordered' seti s a set|or whi ch.

between thee|ements o| the set,there is a re|ation o| tota|order,

giventwoe| ements,e and e

, i|< denotes the order-rel ati on, then

eithere< e

,e

< e,ore e

,notwoe| ementsare' non-comparab| e'

bythi s re|ation,

givenanynon-emptypart o|theset so ordered,there is asma||est

e|ement o| thi s part an e|ement o| thi s part that is sma| | erthan
a| | the others . I|P is the part considered, there exists , whi ch
be|ongs to P and |or whi ch, |or everyother

be|onging to P, p
<

Thi se|ement wi | | be ca| |ed the mi ni ma| e|ement o| P.

l| an e|ement p i s mi ni ma| |or a part P, it a|one possesses that
property. For,i|therewereanother,a

di ||erent|rom, then,because
theorderistota| , either <

and

wou| dnotbe mi ni ma| , or

<
and wou|d not be mi ni ma| . So we can speak without hesitation
o|the ' mi ni ma| e|ement' o|a partP o|a we| | -orderedset.
We can see that the genera| concept o| the we|| -ordered set is
mere|ya sort o|extrapo| ati on|romwhatthe schoo|boy observes i n
themost |ami | i arnumbers. thenatura| who| enumbers.
6. 5. Agoodi mage o|a we| | -orderedseti sas|o| | ows. LetE be such
a set. ' Start' with the sma| |este| emento|E, whi ch, gi ven condi ti on
2 above, must exist. Ca| | this e|ement I . Consi der the part o| E
obtained by removing I , the part ( E - I . lt too has a mi ni ma|
e|ement, which comes in a certai n sense straigbt after 1 . Ca| | thi s
e|ement2. Considerthe part o|E obtained by removing I and2 to
bethepart ( E- I , 2 . Ithasa mi ni ma| e|ement,ca| | it3, andsoon.
A we| | -ordered set presents itse| || i ke a chai n, so that every | i nk o|
thechai n|o||ows ' |o| | ows' meani ng. comesj usta|terin the re|ation
Ol tota| order on| y one other, we| | determi ned it i s the mi ni ma|
e|ementofubat remains .
6. 6. Cantor' s stroke o|geni us was t o re|use t o | i mi t thi s i mage to
thehnite, andtherebytointroduce inhnitenumerati ons. He hadthe
|o| | owing idea. I| I suppose the exi stence - beyond that sequence
I ,2, 3, . . . , n,n+ I , . . . - o|a who|e numberwhich i sthe' hrst'we| | -
orderedset, the matrix o|a| | others, an ' i nhnite ordi na| number'
54 LLWLPL\L1Lb! LLL, LLLLF1W L, LPW\, LPW\
anddec| are it | argerthan a| | thenumbersthatprecede it,thenwhat
preventsme|romcontinuing I can very we| | treatasthemi ni ma|
e|ement o|a we| | -ordered setthatcomes i nsomesenseaertheset
o| a| l the who| e numbers. And I can then consi der the ' numbers'
+ I, + 2, . . . , + n,. . . , etc. I wi|l arrive eventua| | yat +,
andwi|| continue onceagai n. Nostoppi ngpoi nti sprescribedtome,
sothatI havea sorto|tota|series,eachtermo|which isthepossible
measure o|every exi stent sequence. Thi s term indicates to me that,
bouecer many came before it, it numbers every series o| the
same length.
6. 7. Al | ow me to cal l ordina| the measure o| the length o| a wel l -
orderedset, |romitsmi ni ma| e| ementtoits'end' . The' enti re' sequence
o|ordi nal s woul d then provi de us with a sca|e o|measurement |or
such |engths. Each ordi na| wou| d represent a possi b| e structure o|
we| | -orderedness, determi ned by the way in which the e| ements
succeed each other, and bythetota| numbero|these e|ements. This
i s why we say that an ordina|, whether hnite (the ordi na| s which
comebe|ore,andwhi charequi tesi mp|ythenatura| who| enumbers
or i nhnite ( those ordi na| s which come a|ter , numbers a 'type o|
we| | -orderedness' .
6. 8. Togivea technicalgroundi ng|orthi sidea,wewi | | considerthe
cl asso|we| l -orderedsetsthatarei somorphi ctooneo|thesetsamong
them ( and there|ore i somorphi c to each other . What shou| d we
understand bythi s?
Taketwo we| | -ordered sets, E and E', < theorder-re|ation o|E,
and<

theorder-re| ati ono|E

'
. Iwi | | saythatEandE'areisomorphic
i |there exi sts a bi univoca| correspondencej c. 4. 5 between E and
E
'
, s uchthat, when e, < e,, i nE, thenf e, <

f e, in E'
.
Wecan see thatf proj ectstheordero| E i ntotheordero|E', and,
what' smore,si ncej is bi univoca| , thereare' asmany' e|ementsi nE
'
as |n E. Wecanthere|oresaythatE and E', consi dered strictly |rom
the poi nt o|view o|thei rwel | -orderedness, and abstracted |rom the
si ngu| arity o|thei re|ements, are identica| . the ' morphi sm' ( |orm o|
thei r we| | -orderedness is ' i so' ( the same , as the correspondence j
assures us.
In |act, eachc| ass o| we| | -ordered sets i somorphic to each other
represents a we| | -orderedness, that we| l -orderedness common to al l
sets o|thatc| ass. |t i s tbis we| | -orderednessthatcan be represented
by anordi nal .
Thus an ordi na| is the mark o| a possi ble hgure ( a |orm, a
morphi sm o| we| | -orderedness, i somorphic to a| | the sets that
LPW1\. `YLLL-\LLLLWLbb` PWL mL \L1WPLb 55
take that |orm. An ordi na| i s tbe number or tbe c/ber of a
ue||-orderedness.
6. 9. Thi s concepti on, a| ready moving strong|y in the di rection o|
determi ni nga borizon o|being|ora| | numberi n the |orm o|a uni -
versalsca| eo|measurement|or |ormso|we| | -orderedness,neverthe-
l esspresentssomeseri ousdi |hcu|ti es, thehrstamongthemtechni ca| ,
theremainder phi | osophica| .
6. IO. The techni cal di |hcu|ties are three i n number, three questi ons
whi chmustbe answered.
! Which is the rstterm in the tota| series o| ordi na| s, the i ni ti al
| i nkthat' anchors' thewho| echai n? Thi s istheconceptua| ques-
ti on o| zero or the empty set, whi ch a|one is ab|e to number
sequences o| no |ength, sequences with no elements, the we|l-
orderednessthatorders notbing. This i sthequestionthatcaught
outFrege.
2 Whatexactlyistheprocedureo|thoughtthatal l owsustosuppose
a beyond o|the sequence o|hnite who|e numbers ? What is the
gesture by whi ch we ass beyond the hnite, and dec| are the
hrst ordina| whi ch wi|| not be a natura| who|e number, the hrst
mark o|a wel | -orderednessthatdescri besthestructureo|a non-
hnite set? Thi s i s the exi stenti al question o| the i nhnite, upon
which Dedeki nd |oundered.
J Does the universa| series o| ordi nal s~ the scale o| measurement
o|a| | |ength, whetherhniteori nhnite,thetota| ityo|speci hcati ons
o|wel l -orderedness~ existi ntheset-theoretical |ramework? lsn' t
it ~ | i ke the ' system o| a| | the possi b| e obj ects o| my thought'
introduced by Dedeki nd ~ an inconsistent tota| i ty, one that
thought cannot take as one o| its possi b| e obj ects ? Thi s i s the
question o| counting |or one an ' abso| ute' tota| ity. |t is thus
the prob|em o|the de|ection o|the One as soon as we c| ai mto
' count' the universe o|di scourse.
And so, once agai n, we hnd ourselves returned to the three chal -
lenges o|themodern thi nking o|number. zero, the i nhnite andthe
non-beingo|theOne.
6. I I . |trapid|yturnsoutthatthethi rdprob| emadmitso|nopositive
so| ution. Somethi ngthatwasatonetimeput|orwardasa ' paradox' ,
theura| i -Fortiparadox, canactua| | yberoced.theordi na| sdonot
formaset,theycannotbeco| | ectedi na mu|ti p|ethatcanbecounted
5 LLWLPL\L1Lb. LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
|or one. The i dea o| ' a| | ' the ordi na| s is inconsistent, i mpossi b| e, it
i s, to thi sextent, the rea| o|the horizon o| the being o| number.
This proo|i sveryc| ose|yre| atedtothatwhichre|utes Dedeki nd' s
attemptto provetheexi stence o|an i nhniteset( compare 4. 28 . the
set o|' al | ' the ordi na| s must itse| | be an ordi na| , and thus it wou|d
be inside itse||( since i t is a set o|a||the ordi na| s andoutside itse||
( sinceiti snotcounted i nthesequence ittota| i ses . Weare there|ore
prohi bitedtospeako|a' seto|ordina| s' withno|urtherqua| i hcation.
Whi ch is preci se| y to say. ' bei ng an ordi na| ' is a property uitb no
extension. Iti spossi b| etoconrm thata certai nobj ect isanordina|
( possessestheproperty , butnottocountjoronea||theobj ectsthat
have this property.
6. I2. I havesai denough, in my cri ti que o| |rege and Dedeki nd, |or
the treatment o| prob| ems ! and2 6. IO to be antici pated. the exis-
tence o|zero, or the empty set, and thc existence o|an i nhnite set
can inno way bededuced|rom' pure|y|ogica| ' presupposi ti ons. They
are axi omatic deci si ons, taken under the constraints o|the hi storial
i nj unction o|bei ng. The wor| d o|modern thought is nothing other
than the e||ect o| this i nj uncti on. egi nni ng in the Renaissance, by
way o| a rupture with the Creek cosmos,
,
it became necessary,
i n order to be ab|e to thi nk at a| | i n accordance with our pre-
understanding o|onto|ogica| exigency, to assume.

that the proper mode under whi ch every situation ' that i s' is
sutured to its being i snotPresence, thedehiscence o|thatwhich
pro-posesitse||wi thi nits| i mi ts, butpuresubtracti on, theunqua| i -
hab| e voi d. In that |orm o| being which i s number, thi s can be
stated as |o| | ows. 'zero exists' , or, in a sty|e more homogenous
with Cantor's onto|ogica| creation. ' a set exi sts which has no
el ements' ,
O
that, in thei r quasi -tota| i ty, and by way o| a rupture with the
medi aeva| tradition which reserves this attri bute |or Cod alone,
si tuati on-beings are i nhnite, so that, |ar |rom being a predicate
whose|orcei sthato|thesacred,thei nhnitei sa bana|determi na-
ti on o|bei ng, such as it pro||ers i tse| |as pure mu| ti p| icity under
the| awo|acount-|or-one. Inthat|ormo|beingwhichisnumber,
this can be stated as |o| | ows. 'an i nhnite set exists', or, more
techni ca| | y. ' an ordi na| exi sts whi ch is not a natura| who|e
number' . Or, i n otherwords, ' exi sts' .
6. I J. Onehadtowai tpracti ca| l yunti | thebegi nni ngo|thetwentieth
century be|ore these deci si ons re| ati ng to zero and to the i nhnite
LPW\. `YLLL-\LLLLWLbb` PWL mL \L1WPLb 57
would berecognised i n themselves ( under the names o|the Axi om
o|theEmptySetandtheAxiomo|| nhni ty , al thoughthey hadbeen
operative i nthought |orthree hundredyears. utthi si snot surpri s-
ing. Wecanobservea veritabl ebi|osobica|desperationconstantly
puttingthesei mperatives i nto reverse, whether through the intellec-
tual derel iction o|thethemeo|hnitudeorthrough nostal gi a |or the
Creek ground o|Presence. It istruethat, when we are deal i ng with
pure decl arations, decided i n themselves, these decl arati ons exhi bit
the |ragil ity o| thei r hi storicity. No argument can support them.
What' smore,certai ntruth procedures, in particul arpol itics,art and
love, are notyetcaab|e ofsustaining such axi oms, and so in many
waysremainCreek.Theycl i ngtoPresence( artandlove , conti nual l y
recusingthestatement 'zero i sthepropernumeric nameo|being' i n
order to give tri bute totheobsolete rights o|theOne. Or pol i tics
they manage hnitude, corrodi ng day a|ter day the statement 'the
situation is i nhni te' , i n order to va| ori se the corrupted authority
o|practicalities.
6. I4. The two axi oms o|the voi d and o|the i nhnite structure the
enti rethi nki ngo|number. Thepurevoidi sthatwhichsupportstbere
being number, and the i nhnite, that by whi ch it is a|hrmed that
number is the measure o|the thi nking o|ecery situati on. The |act
that thi s is a matter o| axi oms and not o| theorems means that the
exi stenceo|zero and o|thei nhnitei sprescri bedtothoughtbybei ng,
inorderthatthoughtmightexistintbeonto|ogica|eocbo|suchan
existence.
Inthi ssense,thecurrentstrengtho|reactive,archai candrel i gi ous
wi l l sisnecessari l yaccompaniedbyani rremedi abl eopacityo|number
=
whi ch,notceasi ng to rule over us, sincethi s i stheepochal l awo|
being, nevertheless becomes unthi nkable |or us. Number may exist
as|ormo|beingbut,asa resul to|thetota| secul ari sati ono|thevoi d
ando|thei nhnite, thoughtcanno l ongerexisti nthe|orm andwi th
the|orcethattheepochprescribestoit.Sonumberwi l l nowmani |est
itsel |, withoutl i mit, as tyranny.
6. I 5. Thepri nci pal phi losophi cal di |hcultyo| theCantori anconcept
o| the ordi nal s i s as |o| | ows. In the presentati ons which bind it to
the concept o| wel l -orderedness, the theory o| ordinal s rather
seems to 'general i se' the intuition o| natural whole number that
al lows us to tbink the being o| number. lt draws its authority
|rom that which it cl ai msto el ucidate. The i dea o|wel l -orderedness
in e||ect does not so much |ound the concept o|number as deduce
it |rom the l acunary and hnite experience o| numerical immediacy,
58 LLWLPL\L1Lb! LLL, LLLLF1WL, LPW\, LPW\
whi ch l i ncarnated i n 6. J in the sympathetic hgure o| the
schoo| boy.
| |we trul y wi sh to establ ish the bei ngo|number as the |orm o|
the pure mu| ti p| e, to remove it |rom the schoo|room ( which means
a| sotosubtracttheconcept|romitsambientnumeri ca| ity , wemust
di stance ourse|ves |rom operati ona| andseri al mani pu|ati ons. These
mani pu| ati ons, sotangi b| einPeano,proj ectontothescreeno|modern
i nhnitythequasi -sensi b| ei mage o|ourdomesticnumbers,the I , |o| -
| owed by2, whichprecedes 3, andthentherest. Theestab| i shingo|
thecorrectdistancebetweenthoughtandcountab|e mani pu| ati onsi s
preci se| y what l ca| | the onto| ogi sati on o| the concept o| number.
From the poi nt at which we presentl y hnd ourselves, it takes on
the |orm o|a mostprecisetask. the onto|ogisation o|the ' universa| '
series o| t he ordi na| s. To proceed, we must abandon the idea o|
we| | -orderedness and thi nk ordinati on, ordi na| ity, i n an intrinsic
|ashi on.
lti s not as a measure o|order, nor o|di sorder, thattheconcept
o|numberpresentsi tse| |tothought. Wedemand ani mmanentdeter-
mi nation o| its being. And so |or us the question now |ormu|ates
itse| | as |ol l ows. which predicate o| the pure mul ti pl e, that can be
graspedoutsideo|a| | seria| engenderment, |oundsnumerica| ity? We
do not wanttocount, we wantto thi nk the count.
Z
\OHCCtS. l3tUt3 |UtCtCS
7
t3HStVC |UtCtCS
7. I . Whatpermitstheabandonmento|everyprimiticebondbetween
number and order or seri al ity is the concept o| the transitive set.
Only this structural ~ and essenti al l yontol ogi cal ~ operatorenables
an i ntri nsi cdetermi nati ono|numberas a hgure o|natural bei ng. ln
vi rtueo|it,weare nolongertrappedi nthequandarieso|thededuc-
tiono|theconcept( Frege , o|thesubj ectascausa| ityo|l acki nseri al
engenderment( Mi l l er , o|theexi stenceo|thei nhnite ( Dedeki nd , or
o|the'school boy' intuition o|wel l -orderedness ( Cantor .
7.2. Althoughthi sconceptmightseemat hrstg| ance rathermysteri -
ous,i tslacko|rel ati ontoanyintuitivei deao|numberistomyeyes
agreatvi rtue. ltprovesthati nitwegraspsomethingthatbreaksthe
ci rc|eo|anonto|ogical elucidationo|numberenti re|ytransparentin
its pure and si mp| e presupposition. We have seen that thi s ci rcl e
recurs in Frege and i nDedeki nd, andthattheCantori anconception
o|ordinalsastypeso|wel l -orderednessi ssti l l compl |antwi thit. ut
we sha| | see that the legitimacy jor bi|osopbica| tbougbt o| the
concept o|transitivity| eavesnoroom |ordoubt.
7. J. Tounderstandwhatatransitiveseti s, iti sessenti al topenetrate
thedistinction~ o|whichitwoul dnotbean exaggerationtosaythat
it supports al | post-Cantori an mathematics ~ between an element' s
be|onging to a set and the inc|usion o| a part. Thi s distinction is
rudimentary, but it i mpl ies such pro|ound consequences that |or a
longtime it remainedobscure.
Z L\WLLb! WP\PL \L1L1L1Lb
7. 4. A set is ' made out o| el ements' , is the ' col lecti on' i n my l an-
guage, thecount-|or-one o|its elements.
Take the set E, and let e be one o| the elements |rom which it
' makes' a set. wedenotethi s by e E, andwesaythate belongsto
L, bei ngthe sign |or be|onging.
I |younow'gathertogether' manyel ementso|E,they|ormapart
o| E. Taki ngE as the set o|thesee|ements, E is a part o| E. This is
denoted by E' C E, and we saythat E' i s i ncl uded in E, C beingthe
sign o|i ncl usi on.
Everye| emento|a part E' o|E is anelement o|E. | n|act thi s is
thedehni ti ono|a part. Ei sinc|udedi nE whenal l theel ementsthat
be|ong to E
'
a|so be|ong to E. Sowe see that inc|usion i sdehnedi n
tcrms o|bel onging, which isthe on| y ' pri mitive' si gno|set theory.
Thecl assi c mi sl eadi ng i mage is drawn l i ke thi s.
| nitwecanseethatE
'
i sa part o|E,thate, isatonce asisevery
element o| E
'
an element o| E and an el ement o| L, and that
e, i sanelemento|'thewhol e' E, butnoto|thepart E' . We al sosay
that e, bel ongs to the difference o| E and L, which is denoted by
E~E
'
.
7. 5. Is it possi ble |or an element that be|ongs to set E also to be a
part o|thatset,al sotobe inc|uded Thi sseemstotal l ybizarre,above
al l i|we re|ertothei mage above. utthi ssentimentmi ssesthemost
i mportant point, whi ch is that an e|ement o|a set can obvi ousl y be
itsel |a set andeven that thi s is al ways the case . Consequently, i|e
belongs to E, and e is a set, the question arises whether an element
o|e i s or is not, in its turn, an elemento|E. ||al | the elements o|e
are al soel ements o| E, thene,whi ch is an elemento| E, is al soa part
o|E. It bel ongs to E andis i ncl uded in E.
7. 6. Suppose |orexampl e that V i s the seto|l i ving bei ngs. Mycat
belongs to thi s set. ut a cat is composed o|cel l s, whi ch one might
sayarethemselvesall l i vingbeings. Somycati satonceal i vi ngbeing
PWb11VL \L1L1L11Lb J
andaseto|l i vingbeings. He belongstoV quaone, tbis l i vi ngcat ,
and he is a part o| V ~ he is incl uded i n V ( qua group o| l i ving
cel l s .
7. 7. Forget cats. Considerthethree |ol l owi ng ' obj ects' .
~ theobj ecte, ,
~ the obj ecte_ ,
~ the obj ect which is the 'gathering together' o| the hrst two, and
which we denote by e, ,e, . This i scal ledtheairo|e, ande_ .
Form a set |rom these three obj ects. |n the same way, we denote
it by. ( e, ,e,, ( e, ,e, . Thi s iscal ledthetrip|eto|e, and e, and the pai r
( e, ,e_ . We wi l l denote it by T. Note that the three elements that
be|ongto thistriplet are e, , e,, and ( e, ,e_ .
Si ncee, ande_ belongt oT, i |I 'gatherthem together' , I obtai n a
art o|T. Thus, the pai r e, ,e_ , which is the 'gatheringtogether' o|
thesetwoelementso|T, i sinc|udedi nT. uti naddi ti onwecansee
that it i s an element o| it, that it al so be|ongs to it. Thus we have
constructeda verysi mpl ecase o|a seto|whi chanelementi sal soa
part.|n setT, the pai r e, ,e_ issi multaneousl yinaposi ti ono|bel ong-
ingand o|i ncl usi on.
7. 8. We know, |rom a |amous theorem o| Cantor' s, that there are
morepartsthanelements in anyset Ewhatsoever.Thi sis whatI cal l
the excess o| i ncl usi on over belonging, a l aw o| bei ng qua being
whose consequences |or thought are immense, since it a||ects the
|undamental categories that i n|orm the couplets One/Mul ti ple and
Whole/Part. It is there|ore i mpossi bl e that every part shoul d be an
element,thateverythingthatisi nc|udedshou| dal sobel ong. thereare
a|uays partsthatare notelements.
utwecanputthequestion|romtheotherdi recti on. si ncewecan
seethatitispossi bl eincenai ncases |orexampl emycat|ortheset
Vo|l i vi ng beings, orthe pair e, ,e_ |or ourtri pl etT |oranelement
to be a part, isitpossi bl e|ora||elementsto be parts,|oreverythi ng
thatbelongs tothesetto be i ncl uded? Thi si snotthecase|or T. the
elemente, takenal one,|orexampl e, i snota part o|T.
Canweproducea non-empi ri ca|exampl e because myV, mycat
and its cel l s are rational l y suspect o| a set al l o| whose el ements
would be parts ?
7. 9. Let's retrace our steps a l ittle, back to the empty set. We have
proposed i n 2. I 8 the axi om ' a set exi sts whi ch has no el ements' ,
4 L\WLLb! WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
that i s, a set to whi ch nothing belongs . We aregoingto give to this
set,the' empty' rock o|thewhole edihceo|multiple-being,a proper
name, the name ' 0' .
The|ol l owi ng,extremelysubtle, remark mustbemade. tbeempty
setisaartofeceryset,0 isincl udedinEwhateverEmightbe.Why?
ecause, i| a set F is nota part o| E, it is becausethere are e|ements
o|Fthatare not elements o|E i |every elemento|F isanelemento|
E,then bydehnition F isa parto|E . Now0 hasnoelements. So,it
i si mpossi bl e|or itnottobea parto|E. Theemptysetis' universal l y'
incl uded, becausenothing i n it can preventordenysuch i ncl usi on.
To put it another way. to demonstrate that | is not a part o| E
requi resthatwepi ckout,uitbin|,atleastoneelement. thatelement
whi ch, not being an element o|E, proves that F cannot be i ncl uded
' enti re| y' wi thi nE. Nowthevoid doesnottolerateanydi ||erentiation
o| this sort. lt i s i n-di ||erent, and, because o| this, it i s i ncl uded in
every multi pl i ci ty.
7. IO. Considerthetwo |ol l owing ' obj ects ' .
~ theempty set, 0,
~ the set whose one and onl y e|ement is the empty set, which is
cal led thesing|eton o|theemptyset,and i sdenoted by 0 .
Note wel l that thi s second obj ect i s different |rom the empty set
itsel |. In |act, the empty set has no elements, whereas the si ngleton
has one element ~ preci sel y, the empty set. The si ngleton o| the
void ' counts |or one' the void, whereas theemptysetdoesnotcount
anything thi s i ndicates a subtle distinction between 'does not
count anythi ng' , whi ch is what 0 does, and ' counts nothing' , which
is what 0 does. Pl ato al ready played on thi s di sti nction i n the
larmenides .
7. I I . An addi ti onal remark as regards si ngl etons si ngletons
' i ngeneral ' , notthe parti cul arsingleton o|theemptyset . Takea set
E andone o| its elementse soC E . Thesi ngl eton o|e,written e ,
is a arto|E. e C E.
What i s the si ngleton o| e, i n |act ? It i s the set whose uni que
element is e. Consequently, i| e is an element o| E, ' al l ' the elements
o|the si ngleton e ~ namel y the single element e ~ are elements o|
E, andso e i s i ncl uded i n E.
7. I2. ' Cathertogether' ourtwoobj ects,theemptysetdenoted by 0
and the si ngleton o| the empty set, denoted by 0 . We obtai n the
PWb11VL \L1L1L11Lb 5
pai r( 0, ( 0 , whi chwewi | | denote byD. Thi stime,thetuoe|ements
o| the pair D are a|so parts, everything that be|ongs to D is a| so
inc|udedinD. In |act,thehrste|ement, 0, theempty set, i si nc| uded
in any set whatsoever ( see 7. 9 . Speci hca|| y, it is a part o| the pai r
D. ut, what' smore, si nce 0 is an e|emento|D, i tssi ngleton ( 0 , i s
aparto|D 7. I I . ut ( 0 i spreci se| ytheseconde| emento|D. Thus
thi se|ementi sa| soinc|udedi nD. ThesetDi ssuchthateverye|ement
o|it i sa|so a part, everythingthat belongs to D is i nc| uded in D.
7. I J. AspredictedbyCantor' stheorem,therearepartso|Dthatare
not e|ements o| D. |or exampl e, the si ng|eton o| the e|ement 0 o|
D is a part o|D, as is every si ngleton o|ane|ement 7. I I . Wecan
write this' si ng|etono|thesi ng|eton' as( ( 0 . Now, thi sobj ectisnot
one o|thetwoelements o|D.
7. I4. An i mportant dehnition. we say that a set T is transitice i |it
i s| i ke the set D thatwehave j ust bui |t. i |a|| o|itse| ements are a| so
parts,i |everythingthatbe|ongstoitisa| soi nc| udedi ni t, i |,wherever
it i sthe casethat t T, it i s a|so thecasethat t C T.
7. I 5. Transitive sets exist, wi thout a doubt. Perhaps V, the set o|
| i ving beings, certai n| ytheset( 0, ( 0 , whi ch is transparent, trans| u-
centeven,constructed asi tis|romthevoi d( thepai ro|thevoi dand
thesing|eton o|thevoi d, thevoi dassuchandthevoi das one .
7. I6. Modernity i sdehnedbythe|actthattheOnei snot( Nietzsche
said that ' Cod i s dead' , but |or hi m the One o|Li |e took the p| ace
o|thedeceased . So,|or we moderns or ' |ree spi rits' , theMu|ti p| e-
without-One i sthe |astword on being qua being. Now thethought
o| the pure mu| ti pl e, o| the mu| ti p| e consi dered i n itse| |, without
considerationo|whatiti sthe mu|tip|eo|(so. withoutconsi deration
o|anyobjectwhatsoever , iscal l ed. ' mathematicalsettheory' .There-
|ore every maj or concept o| thi s theory can be understood as a
concept o| modern ontol ogy.
What does onto|ogy di scover in the concept o| the transitive
set?
7. I 7. elongi ngis an onto|ogica||unctiono|resentation, i ndicating
tbatubicb is presented inthecount-|or-one o|a mu| ti p| e. Inc| usi on
i stheonto|ogica| |unction o|reresentation, i ndicatingmu|ti p| es re-
countedaspartsinthe|rameworko|arepresentati on. Amosti mpor-
tantproblem (the problem o|thestatc ofa situation i s determi ned
bythe re|ationbetweenpresentation and representati on.
L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
Now,atransitiveset representsthe maximumpossib|eequi | i brium
betweenbe|ongingandi nc| usi on, thee|ementandthepart, andC.
Transiti vity thus expresses thesuperi ortype o|onto|ogica|stabi |i ty,
the strongestcorre| ati onbetween presentation and representati on.
Therei sa|waysanexcesso|partsovere| ements Cantor'stheorem
'
there a| ways exist parts o| a set whi ch are not e|ements o| that set.
Thus we obtai nthemaxi ma| correspondencebetween be|ongingand
i nc| usi on precise|y when ecery e|ement is a part. when the setcon-
si dered i stransi ti ve.
Thi sstrongi nterna| |rameo|thetransi ti vesetthe|actthatevery-
thi ngthat it presents i nthe mu|ti p|ethat it is, itrepresents a second
timei nthe|ormo|i nc|usi on , thisequi | i bri um, thismaxi ma| stabi | ity,
has |edmeto saythattransitivesets are ' norma| ' , taking ' norma| ' in
the doub| e sense o|non-patho|ogica| , stab|e, strong|y equi | i briated,
thatistosay. notexposedtothedisequi | i bri umbetweenpresentation
and representati on, a di sequi | i bri um whose e||ective |orm i s the
eventa| caesura, and submitted to a norm, that o| a maxi ma| | y
extended correspondence between the two maj or categories o|
onto|ogica| i mmanence. be|onging and i nc| usi on.
7. I 8. Theconcepto|transitivemu| ti p| icitywi | | constitutethenorma|
basi s |or the thi nki ng o| number. Transitivity i s at once that which
makes o| number a section

taken |rom the equi | i brated |abric o|

being andthatwhi ch provi desthe norm|orthi s secti on.

YOH lCum3HH LtU| H3S
8. I . Let' sconsi dermorec| oselyset D, i ntroduced in 7. I2, writtenas
( 0, ( 0 , whi ch isthepai ro|thevoi d andthe si ngleton o|the voi d.
We know that set D i s transi ti ve. i ts two elements, 0 and ( 0 ,
are al so parts o|D. Wecanmake a |urther remark here. tbese tuo
e|ements are a|so transiticesets.

That 0 istransitiveis sel |-evident.theonl yelemento|the si ngl e-

ton (0 i s 0. Now, 0 is a ' uni versal ' part i ncl uded i n every set,
and, in particul ar, it i s i ncl uded in the set ( 0 . So the uni que
element o| ( 0 is a| so a part o| ( 0 , and consequently ( 0 is a
transitive set.

That0, the emptyset, istransitiveresults|romits negative' poros-

ity' to every property, whi ch al ready makes it a part o|any set
whatsoever( compare 7. 9 . a transitiveseti soneal l o|whosee|e-
mentsareal soparts. Thusa setthat i snottransitivehasat least
one element that is not a part. Now 0 has no elements. So it
cannotnotbe transitive. And, so, it i s.
With oursetD we have constructed not on| ya transitive set, but
a transitive set o|transitive sets. thi stransitive set 'gathers together'
transi tive sets. oth0, ( 0 andthei rpai r ( 0, ( 0 , are transi ti ve.
8. 2. A truly |undamental dehni ti on. A set is an ordina| (in con
Neumann's sense) i |it i s l i ke D, that i s, i |it is transitive and al l OI
its elements are transitive.
8 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
8. J. Thi sdehnitioncompletesthetechni cal parto|theontologisation
o| the concept o| the ordinal . We are no longer deal i ng with wel l -
orderedness,wi ththei mageo|thesequenceo|naturalwhol enumbers,
or with an operati onal status. Our concept i s purely i mmanent. It
descri besacertaini nternal structural |ormo|the ordi nal , a|ormthat
connects together i n a singul ar |ashi on the two cruci al ontological
operators belonging and i ncl usi on, andc.
Set D, which we have used as anexempl ary case, i s there|ore an
ordi nal . Wecanl i |tacornero|theveilonitsi dentity. iti stbenumber
Tuo. Moreover, thi s Two al l ows us to a|hrm that von Neumann
ordi nal sexist.
8. 4. e|oredepl oyi ngthisnewconcepto|theordi nal , let'sbegi nwith
a hrst exami nati on o|the status o|its dehni ti on and o|the reasons
why the ordi nal s constitute the absol ute ontological horizon o|a||
numbers.
8. 5. I have i ndicated 7. I 6 that a transitive set is the ontological
schema o|the ' normal ' mul ti pl e. Taking into account the |act that
the excess o|representation over presentation is i rremedi abl e, tran-
si ti vi ty representsthe maxi mal equi l i bri um betweenthetwo.
Now, not only is an ordi nal transitive, but all o|its elements are
al sotransitive. An ordi nal di ssemi nates to the interi or o| a multiple
thatnormal itywhi chcharacterisesit.Iti sanormal ityo|normal ities,
anequi l i bri um o|equi l i bri a.
A trul yremarkabl eproperty results|rom thi s, whi chi sthateccry
e|ementofan ordina|is an ordina|.
Take an ordi nal W, and an element o| that ordi nal x so that
x W . W beingan ordinal , al l o|itselements aretransitive,sox is
transi ti ve. Forthesamereason theordi nal ityo|W Wi sitsel |transi -
ti ve, sox, anelemento|W, is al soa part o|W. x C W. As a result,
all theel ementso|x are elements o|W. And, j ustasall theelements
o|W are transitive, the same |ol l ows |or all the elements o|x. The
setx i s thus a transitivesetal l o|whoseelements are transitive. it is
an ordinal .
8. 6. | | transitivity i s a property o|stabi l ity, thi sti mewedi scover a
complementary property o| bomogeneity. that whi ch makes up the
internal multi pl e o|an ordi nal , the elements belonging to it, are al l
ordi nal s. An ordi nal is the count-|or-one o| a mul ti pl icity o|
ordinal s.
ecause o|thi s homogenous and stabl e ' |abric' o|ordi nal multi-
pl icity,| havebeenledtosaythatordi nal saretheontologicalschema
V\W WL\PWW \L1WPLb
o| the natura| multiple. I call ' natural ' by way o| opposi ti on to
mul ti pl icities that are unstabl e,heterogeneous, bistorica|, and whi ch
arethusexposedtotheeventalcaesura preci sel ythatwhi chi sexem-
pl i hed bythe underlyi ngmul ti ple~beingasthought by mathemati cs.
a maxi mal consistency,ani mmanentstabi | ity wi thoutl acuna, anda
per|ecthomogeneity, in so |ar as thato|whi chthi smulti ple~bei ngis
composedis oftbesame tye as itsel |.
We there|ore posit, once and |or al l , that an ordi nal is the i ndex
o|the being o|a natural mul ti pl icity.
8. 7. I | it i s true that the ordi nal s constitute the great ontol ogi cal
'ground' o|number,then wecan al sosaythatnumberi sa hgure o|
naturalbeing,orthatnumberroceedsfromNature.Wi ththecaveat,
however,that ' Nature' re|ers here to nothi ngsensi ble, to no experi-
ence. 'Nature' is an ontologi cal category, a category o|the thought
o|the pure multi pl e,orset theory.
8. 8. Must we say si multaneousl y that ordi nal s ' are numbers ' ? Such
would indeedbethei deao|Cantor,whothoughtto achi eve by way
o| the ordinals an i nhni te prolongation o| the sequence o| whole
numbers. ut|orus, whohaveyettoproposeanyconcepto|number,
thiswouldbebeggingthequesti on. Wewi l l see,a|terhavi ngdehned
what| callNumberthecapi tal i sation isnot|orthesakeo|maj esty,
but to designate a concept that subsumes all species o| number,
knownorunknown , thattheordi nal s, thoughplayingadeci siverole
inthisdehni ti on, areonl ytherepresentab|eamongstnumbers,inthe
numerical swarming which being lavishes on tbegroundofNature.
The ordi nal s wi l l thus be at once the i nstrument o| our access to
number, o|our thi nki ng o|number, and, al beit l ost i n a pro|usi on
o|Numbers thatexceeds them ineveryway,theywi l l be represent-
ableorhgurableasthemselves, too, beingNumbers .
8. 9. The empty set, 0, is an ordinal . We have seen above that it i s
transitive 8. I . It |ol lows that al l i ts el ements are al so transitive.
havi ngnoelements,howcoul dithaveanelementthatuasnottransi -
tive? Contrarytoal l intuition,zero,orthevoi d, i sanatura|ontologi-
cal donation. The voi d, whi ch sutures all l anguage and all thought
to being, i sal sothe pointo|nature where number is anchored.
8. IO. Von Neumann ordi nal s havetwo cruci al properties.
I Theyare total l yordered bythe |undamental ontological relation
belonging, the sign o|mul ti ple~presentati on. That is to saythat,
70 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
given two ordi na| s V, andV
;
, either the |ormer be|ongs tothe
| atter V
i
V
;
} , or the other way around V
;
V, orthey
are identica| W, W .
2 Theyobey a pri nci p| eo| mi ni ma| ity. gi ven any property P what-
soever, ifan ordi na| possesses thi s property, tben there exists a
sma| |est ordi na| to possess it. Order is a| ways be|onging. i| you
have an ordi na| W such that it possesses the property P i| the
statement P W is true , then there exi sts an ordi nal W, which
hasthepropertyandwhi chi sthesma| |esttohaveit i|W W_
W doesn'tbace the property .
Thesetwoproperties are natura| . The hrstexpressesthe universa|
i ntrication o| those stab|e and homogenous mu|ti p| icities that are
natura| mu| ti p| icities see 8. 6 . thought in their being, two natura|
mu| ti p| es - two ordi na| s, then - cannot be i ndependent. Either one
is i n the presentation o| the other, or vice versa. Nature does not
to|eratei ndi ||erenceordi sconnecti on. Thesecondpropertyexpresses
the' atomi c' or, i|you| i ke, ' quantum' charactero|nature. | |a prop-
erty app| i es to some natura| mu|ti pl e, then there is a|ways a natura|
mu|ti p| ethat i sthe mi ni ma| support o|thatproperty.
Taken together, these two properties reunite the globa| status
o| nature with its |oca| status. Even though Nature

does not exist

there is no set o|a|| the ordi nal s, see 6. I I , there i sa sort o|unity
o| p| an, o| g| oba| interdependence, between natura| mu| ti p| es.
thepresentati ono|whi chtheyaretheschemai sa| ways'embedded' .
And, a| though there are no uni que and i ndiscerni b| e components
o| nature |ike the Ancients' atoms un|ess one considers the void
as such , there i s an exceptiona| loca| point |or every property
that obtai ns |or the ' regi ons' o|nature. the mi ni ma| support o|this
property.
This arti cu| ation o|the g|oba| and the |oca| | ends its onto| ogica|
|ramework to every Physi cs.
8. I . The two cruci a| properties tota| order and mi ni ma| ity can
both be roced on the basi s o| von Neumann' s dehni ti on o| the
ordi na| s.
These proo|s dependupona keypri nci p| eo|settheory ontol ogy
o| the mu|ti p|e . the Axi om o| Foundati on.
,
Thi s axi om says that
everysituation everypure mu| ti p| e comprisesat|eastoneterm one
e| ement that has ' nothing in common' with the situation, i n the
sense that nothing o| that which composes the term noe|ement o|
the e| ement i s presented in the situation be| ongs to the origina|
mu|ti p| e .
V\W WL\PWW \L1WPLb 7
8. I2. Let' sreturntotheexampl eo|mycat 7. 6 . |ti sanelemento|
theset o|l iving beings, and it is composed o|cel l sthat are in turn
elementso|this set, i|onegrantsthat theyare l i vi ng organi sms. ut
i |wedecomposeacel l intomolecules,thenintoatoms, weeventual l y
reach pure|y physi cal e|ements thatdon' tbe|ongtotheseto|| i vi ng
bei ngs. There is a certai n term perhaps the cel l , in |act which
be|ongs to the set o| l i ving beings, but none o| whose el ements
belongstotheseto|l i ving beings, becausethoseelements all i nvol ve
onl y' inert'physico-chemi cal materi al ity. O|thi sterm, whi chbelongs
to the set but none o| whose el ements belongs to it, we can say
that it grounds the set, or that it is a |undamental term o|the set.
'Fundamental ' meani ngthatononesi deo|theterm,webreakthrough
that whi ch it constitutes, we |eave the origi nal set, we exceed its
presentative capacity.
8. IJ. Once more, let' s leave l i ving beings, cats, cel l s and atoms
behind. Consider the si ngl eton o|the si ngl eton o|the voi d, that i s,
thesetwhoseuni que elementi sthesi ngleton o|thevoi d, andwhi ch
iswritten as 0 . Theelement 0 o|thi ssethasasitsonl yelement
thevoid, 0. Nowthevoi disnotanelement o|theorigi nal set ( ( 0 ,
whose onl y element i s ( 0 , because the void 0 and the si ngl eton
o|the void ( 0 are di ||erent sets. So ( 0 represents, in ( ( 0 , a loca|
|oundati on-point. ithasnoelement incommon withthe original set
( ( 0 . Thatwhi chitpresentsquamultip|e~ thati s, 0~ i snotpresented
by 0 , in the presentation in which i thgures.
The Axiom o| Foundation tel l s us that thi s si tuati on i s a l aw o|
being. every multi pl e i s |ounded, every multi pl e comprises at least
one element whi ch presents nothing that the mul ti pl e itsel |
presents.
8. I4. The Axiom o| Foundation has a remarkabl e consequence,
which i sthat no setcan be|ong to itse|f, that no multiple hgures i n
i ts own presentati on, that no mul ti pl e counts itsel | as one. | n thi s
sense, being knous notbingofreection.
Take a set E whi ch is an element o| itsel |. E E. Consi der the
singleton o|thi s set, E . The on|yel ement o|thi s sing|eton i s E. So
E must|ound E . ut thi s i s i mpossi bl e, since E bel ongsto E, and
thushas i ncommon with E that element whi ch i s itsel |. Si nce the
axiom o| |oundation is a l aw o|being, we must rej ect the ori gi nal
hypothesi s. theredoesnotexistanysetthat i s anel emento|itsel |.
8. I5. Returning to the cruci al properties o| the ordi nal s. They can
be proved, once the axi om o| |oundation i s assumed. | will do so
7Z L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
here |or the pri nci pl e o| mi ni mal i ty. Forthe pri nci pl e o| total order
through belonging, seethe note. `
Take an ordi nal W, which possesses property P. I|it i s mi ni mal ,
al l i s wel l . Suppose that it i s not. In that case, there exi st ordi nal s
smal l erthan W, andwhi ch there|ore bel ongto W, , sincethe order
in question i s bel ongi ng andwhi ch also possess the property. Con-
si derthe setE o|these ordi nal s 'gatheringtogether' all thosewhich
possess property l and belong to Wj. Set E obeys the Axi om o|
Foundati on. Sothere i sanelementWo|Ewhi chi sanordi nal si nce
E isa seto|ordi nal s thatpossessespropertyP si nce al l theelements
o|E possess it andthat has no element i n common with E.
ut, si nce W, i s an ordi nal , it is transitive. SoW_

which belongs
to it, i s also a part o|it. the elements o|W_ are all elements o|W, .
I| an element o|W, possesses property P,then,since it is an element
o|W, , it must be|ong to since E i sthe set o|a|| the elements o|
W, possessing property P . Which cannot be, because W, |ounds E
and there|ore has no element i n common with E. Consequently,
no element o| W, has the property l, and W_ i s mi ni mal |or this
property. Q|U.
8. I6. Thusi sknittedtheontological |abri c|romwhi chthenumbers
wi l l be cut out. Homogenous, intricate, rooted in the voi d, local l y
mi ni mi sabl e|oreveryproperty, iti sverymuchwhatwecoul dcal l a
borizona|structure.

buCCCSS| OH 3HU L| m| t.
DC | HHH| tC
#N
9. I . |n chapter 6, when we spoke o| Dedeki nd' s and Cantor' s
approachestothenotiono|theordi nal onthebasi so|wel l -ordered-
ness , we saw that the whole problem was that a|ter one ordinal
comes another, well -determined, andthatthi s seriescan be pursued
indehnitel y. Wealsosawthatitwasnotatallthesamethingto' pass'
|rom n to n + I its successor as to pass |rom ' al l ' the natural
numberstotheirbeyond,whichisthei nhniteordi nal . |nthelatter
case, there is mani |estly a shi |t, the punctuation o| a ' passage to the
l i mi t' .
|n the ontologised concept o|the ordi nal s which von Neumann
proposed and to whi ch we dedicated chapter S, do we once more
hnd thi s di alectic between si mpl e successi on and the ' l eap' to the
inhnite? And,more general l y, howdoesthethorny i ssue o|theexi s-
tence o|ani nhnite mul ti pl epresent itsel |i nthi s newcontext ?
9. 2. Let' sappl yourselves hrstlyto the concept o| successi on.
Wemusttakecare here. The i mage o|successi on, o|' passage' to
the next, is so vi vi dl y present in the i mmedi ate representation o|
number that it i s o|ten thought to be constitutice o| i ts essence. |
reproached|. A. Mi l ler seeJ. I7 precisely|or reduci ngthe probl em
o| number to the determination o|that whi ch i nsists in its succes-
si onal engenderment. | hel dthatthe l awo|the seri al passage across
thenumericdomai n,al awwhichi si mposedonus,doesnotcoincide
with the ontological i mmanence o|number as singular |orm o|the
mul ti pl e.
74 L\WLLb! WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
Consequently, i| we hnd the idea o| succession once again in von
Neumann' sconceptiono|theordi nal s, ittoomustyi el dtotheprocess
o|ontologi sati on. Ourgoal wi l l beto discover, not so much a pri n-
ci ple o|passage as an i ntri nsi c qual ihcation o|tbatubicb succeeds,
asopposedtothatwhi chdoesnot. Whatcounts|orusi snotsucces-
si on, but the being of tbe successor. The repetitive monotony o|
Peano' s+I does notconcern us any longer. whatwe wantto thi nk
istheproperbeingo|thatwhichcanonl ybeattainedinthemodal ity
o|the additi onal step.
9. J. Let'sconsi deranordi nal V, i nvonNeumann' ssense atransi -
ti vesetal l o|whoseel ementsare transitive .
A set, then, whoseelements are.
~ al l o| theel ements o| W,
~ W itsel |.
So, to everything that composes the multi pl e W, we ' add' one
supplementaryelement, namely V itsel |. And it i si ndeeda question
o|the adj unction o| a neu element, si nce we know it is a conse-
quence o|the axiom o||oundati on, compare 8. I4 thatW i s never
an element o|itsel |.
A non-operati onal |orm o| +! can be seenemerginghere. it is not
a mattero|anextrinsic additi on, o|anexternal ' pl us' , buto|a sort
o| i mmanent torsi on, whi ch ' completes' the interior multiple o| W
with thecount-|or-one o| that mul ti pl e, a countwhose name is pre-
ci sel yW. The +I consi sts here i nextendingthe ruleo|the assembl y
o|sets to what had hereto|ore been the pri nci pl e o|this assembl y,
that i s, the unihcation o|thesetW, whi ch i stherea|ter al igned with
its own elements, counti nga|ong uitb tbem.
9. 4. An exampl e o| the procedure. We have demonstrated that set
D, which i swritten ( 0, ( 0 , andwhi ch isthepai ro|thevoi dand the
si ngletono|thevoi d,isanordi nal iti stransiti ve andal l itselements
are transitive . Our non-operat| onal dehni ti on o| +I consists in
|ormi ng theseto|the tbree |ol l owingelements. thetwo elements o|
D andD itsel |. Wewritethi sas 0, 0 , 0, 0 the' whol e' D i s|ound
in the thi rd position . Call thi s tri plet T. We can now demonstrate
that.
O
T is transitive. Its hrst el ement, 0, is a uni versal part, and so it
mustbea part o|T, its secondelement, 0 , is the si ngletono|its
hrstel ement,d. Soiti sal soaparto| T see7. I I . |tsthi rdelement
b\LLLbb1\W PWL L11. mL 1W1W1L 75
0, 0 isnothi ngbutthe 'gatheringtogether' , the |ormi ngi ntoa
pai r, o|these hrsttwo. So it is al soa part. So everyelement o|T
is a part, andT is transitive.
O
Al l the elements o| T are transi ti ve. Ci ven that we have shown
thatD i sanordi nal , wehavedul yshownthatitsel ements,0 and
0 , areal sotransi ti ve. Wehaveequal l ydemonstratedthatititsel |,
0, 0 , is transitive. And these are preci sel y the three elements
o| T.
So T, obtained by ' adj oi ni ng' D to the el ements o| D, i s a von
Neumann ordinal . a transitive set al l o| whose elements are
transitive.
9. 5. The reasoning we j ust |ol l owed can easily be general i sed. For
any ordi nal W whatsoever, everything wi l l |ol low j ust as |or T. the
setobtained in adj oi ningW itsel |, as anelement, to W' s elements is
an ordi nal .
We'step' |rom Wtoa newordi nal by adj oi ningto W' selements
a single additional element thi s, now, al lows us to l i |t a corner o|
thevei l onthei dentityo|ourexampl eT. j ustasD wastwo~ Iwoul d
l i ke to say tbe being oj number Tuo ~ T is none other than the
numberThree .
The |act that one steps |rom W t o a new ordi nal , whose
elements are those o| W supplemented by the one-name o| thei r
assembl y, by way o|a sort o| i mmanent +I , j ustihes the |ol l owi ng
dehnition. ue ui|| ca|| tbe ordina| obtained by joining w to tbe
e|ements oj w, tbe successor ojtbe ordina| w, and ui|| denote it
byS(w).
So, in ourexampl e,T three i sthesuccessor o|D two .
9. 6. Theideao|the' passage' |romtwot othree,or |romWt oS W ,
i s, i n truth, purel y metaphorical . In |act, |rom the start tbere are
hgures o|a mul ti ple~being,D and T, and what we havedehned i sa
re|ation whose sol e purpose is to |aci l itate jor us the intel l igi ble
passagethroughtheirexi stences. Finitudedemandsthebi ndi ng o|the
un-binding o|being. We there|orethi nk, i nthesuccessi on T S( D ,
a relation whose basi s i s , i n truth, i mmanent. T has the structural
property, veri hable in its ontological composi ti on, o|bei ng the suc-
cessoro|D, and iti s no more than a necessary i l l usi on to represent
T as beingconstructed ordehned by the relation S, which connects
itexternal l yto D.
Amorerigorousphi l osophi cal approachconsi stsi nexami ni ngthe
ordi nals i n themselves and i nasking ourselves whether they possess
7 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L111Lb
the roertyofsucceeding. For exampl e, T possessesthe propertyo|
succeedingD, recognisab|einitse|ffromtbefacttbatDisane|ement
ofT, and, what' smore ~ aswe shal l see~ that D i san element that
can be i mmanentlydistingui shed it is ' maxi mal ' inT .
We wi l l cal l successorordina|an ordi nal that possessestheprop-
erty o|succeedi ng.
SoT i sa successorordi nal .
9. 7. |tmi ghtbeobj ectedthattheproperty ' succeedsW' i ssti l l latent
inthei ntri nsi cconcepto|successor,andthere|orethatwehave|ai led
to establ i sh oursel ves i n the ontological unbi ndi ng. This obj ection
can be al levi ated.
Let's consi der an ordi nal W having the |ol lowing, purely i mma-
nent,property. amongsttheelementso|W, therei soneelement,say
w, , o|which a|| tbe otber elements o|W are elements. i |_ i s an
el cmento|W di ||erent|romw, , then_ . | saythatW i sneces-
sari l y a successorordi nal i n |act, it succeeds w.
For i |thi s situation obtai ns, i t i s becauseW` s elements are.
~ on the onehandtheelement [ [
~ on theother,elements whi ch, l i kew,, are el ements o| .
ut, i n real ity, a||the el ements o| ] are elements o| W. For we
knowthatbelonging, q is a total orderoverthe ordi nal s see 8. IO .
Now, al l the el ements o|an ordi nal are ordi nal s ( 8. 5 , specihcal l y,
al l thee|ements o|W are ordina| s. i sthere|ore an ordi nal , and i t
|ol l ows that the elements o| are al l ordi nal s. These elements are
connectedto ordi nal andW by therelation o|total orderthati s
bel ongi ng. i | j q si ncej W,thenw W transitivity o|the
order-rel ati on .
ThusW i scomposedo|al l theel ements o| q and j itsel|. W is
by dehni ti on the successoro| [ .
Let' s agree to cal l the maxima| e|ement o| a n ordi nal the
element o| that ordi nal which is l i ke j |or W. all the other
elements o| the ordi nal belong to the maxi mal element. The
reasoni ng above now permits us to make the |ol l owing dehniti on.
An ordita| ui|| be ca||ed a successor if it possesses a maxima|
e|ement.
Here we are in possessi on o| a total l y intrinsic dehnition o| the
successor ordi nal . The si ngul arexi stence o|an ' i nternal ' maxi mum,
located sol el y through the exami nation o|the mul ti pl e structure o|
theordinal , o|the |abrico|el ementary bel ongingatitsheart,al lows
us to decide whether i ti s a successor or not.
b\LLLbb1\W PWL L11. mL 1W1W1L 77
9. 8. Si ncewenowhaveani mmanent, non-re| ati onal andnon-seri al
concepto|' whata successori s' , wecanposethequesti on. Arethere
ordi nal sthatare notsuccessors ?
9. 9. The empty set, 0, is an ordi nal that is not a successor. It obvi -
ousl y cannot succeed anythi ng, since it has no el ements and, to
succeed,itmusthaveatleastoneelement, namely theordi nal thatit
succeeds.
Or, stayi ngcl oserto the i mmanentcharacterisati on. to be a suc-
cessor, d must have a maxi mal element. Havi ng no e| ements, it
cannot be a successor.
Onceagai n, wedi scoverthevoi d' s|unctionasontol ogi ca| anchor.
purely decided in its being, it i s not inferab|e and, i n particul ar, it
cannot succeed. thevoi d i sitse||ontbeedge oftbe coid,therei sno
way itcoul d|o| l ow|rom bei ng, o|whi ch it istheori gi nal poi nt.
9. IO. Al l theordi na| sthatwehaveusedinourexampl es, apart|rom
the void, aresuccessors. Thus 0 which i sthenumber I isthesuc-
cessor o| 0. The number 2, whose bei ng i s 0, 0 , and whi ch is
composed o|the voi d and I , is the successor o| I . And our T the
number 3 , whi ch i s composed o|the voi d, I, and 2 and i s written
0, 0 , 0, 0 , i sthe successoro|2. It is cl ear that we can conti nue,
and wi | l thereby obtain 4, 5,and, hnal l y, any o|the natural whol e
numbers,a||ofubicbaresuccessorordina|s.
9. I I . Does thi s mean that we have at our di sposal a thi nking o|
natural whol enumber? Notyet. We can say that I, then 2, then 3 ,
etc. , i | wethi nkeachi nitsmul ti p|e~bei ng,arenatural whol enumbers .
ut, without being ableto determi ne the|acc o| thei rdeployment,
it is i mpossi bl e |or us to pass beyond this case- by-case designation
and to propose a general concept o| whol e number. As Dedeki nd
perceived, such a concept necessitates a detourthroughthe i nhnite,
si nceitiswithinthei nhnitethatthehnitei nsi sts. Theonlythingthat
wecansay with certainty is that whole numbers are successor ordi-
nals. ut this i s certai nl y not a su|hcient characteri sati on o| them.
there mi ght well be other successors that are not whol e numbers,
perhaps successorsthatare noteven hnite sets.
9. I2. The question becomes . are there any other non-successor
ordi nal sapartfromtbecoid
Let' s cal | these non-successor ordi nal s di ||erent |rom d wi thout
yetknowingwhetherthey exi st |imit ordina|s. We ask once more.
dol i mi tordi nal sexi st?
78 L\WLLb! WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
We are not yet in a positionto decide uponthi squesti on. ut we
can prove that, iftbey do, they are structural | y very di ||erent |rom
successorordi na| s.
9. I J. Noordi nal cancomeinbetweenanordi na| W andi tssuccessor
S W . y this we mean that, gi ven that the order-rel ati on between
ordi na| s is that o|be|onging,no ordi na| W, exi sts such thatwehave
the sequence W e V, e S W .
Weknowi n|actthatW i sthemaxi mal e|emento|S W see9. 7 .
Consequentl y,eceryelemento|S W t hat i sdi ||erent|romWbe|ongs
toV. Now, oursupposedV, be|ongstoS W . There|oreoneo|two
things mustapp| y.

ei ther W, is identica| to W. ut thi s is i mpossi ble, because we

have supposed that W e V, , whi ch wou| dgive us W e W. ut
we know 8. I 4 thatnosetcan be an elemento|itsel |,

or V
i
is an e| ement o| W. utthen itwou| dnotbe possi ble that
W e W, , si nce W, e W.
|t can be seen that ordi nal successi on is the schema o|the 'one
more step' , understoodasthatwhich ho| |owsouta voidbetweenthe
i ni ti a| stateandthehna| state.etweentheordi na| W anditssucces-
sor5 V} , there i snotbing. Meani ng. nothi ng natura| , noordi nal . We
coul dal sosaythata successorordi nal del i mits,j ust' behi nd' itsel |, a
gapwhere nothi ngcan be estab| i shed. |n thi ssense, ratherthansuc-
ceedi ng, asuccessorordina|begins. ithasnoattachment,noconti nu-
i ty, wi ththatwhi ch precedes i t. The successorordi nal opens up |or
thought a begi nni ng in bei ng.
9. I4. A | i mit ordi na| , i |such a thi ng exists, is a di ||erentcase alto-
gether. The dehnitiono|such anordi nal is, pleasenote,purelynega-
tive.itisnota successor,thati sa|lthatweknowo|it|orthemoment.
We can also say. i t does not possess a maxi mal element. ut the
consequences o|thi s lack areconsi derabl e.
Take L, a supposed l i mit ordinal , and u, , an el ement o| thi s
ordina| . Si nceu, i snotmaxi mal , therecertai nl yexi stsan elementu
o| L whichis l argerthan it. so wehave the chai n. u, e u,E L. ut,
si nce i n its turn u, i s not maxi ma| , there exi sts a u
,
such that
u, e u, e u
,
e L. Andso on.
Thus, whenan ordi na| be|ongsto a l i mit ordi na| , a thi rd party is
i nterca| ated into the rel ati on o| bel ongi ng, and, as thi s process has
nostoppingpoi nt,astherei snomaxi mal element,itcanbesai dthat,
between any el ement u o| a | i mi t ordi nal L and L itse| |, there i s
b\LL cbb1\W PWL L11. mL 1W1W1L 7
a|ways an ' inhni ty' , i n the i ntuitive sense, o| intermedi ate ordi na| s.
So it is i na strongsensethatthe| i mit ordi na| doesnotsucceed. No
ordi na| isthe| astto be|ongtoit,the 'c|osest' to it. A | i mit ordi na| is
al ways equa| | y ' |ar' |rom a| | the ordi na| sthat be|ongto it. etween
the e|ement u o|L and L, there i s an i nhnite distance where i nter-
mediaries swarm.
Theresu|tisthat,contrarytowhatisthecase|orasuccessorordina|,
a |imitordina| does not ho||ow outany empty space behinditse||. No
matter how 'c|ose' to L you imagine an e|ement u to be, the space
betweenu andLisinhnite|ypopu|atedwithordi na| s. The|imitordi na|
L is there|ore in a re|ation o|adberence to thatwhich precedes it, an
inhnityo|ordinals'cements' itin p|ace,stopsupeverypossi b|egap.
| |the successor ordi na| is the onto|ogical and natura| schema o|
radica| begi nni ng,the| i mi tordi na| i sthato|theinsensib|c resu|t, o|
trans|ormationwi thoutgaps, o|i nhnite conti nuity. Whi ch i s to say
that every acti on, every wi | | , i s p|aced either under the sign o| the
successor, or under the si gn o| the |imit. Nature here |urni shes us
with the onto|ogi ca| substructure o|the o| d prob|em o| revo| uti on
tabu|a rasa,emptyspaceando|re|orm insensi b| e, consensua| and
pain|essgradations .
9. I 5. There i s another way t o i ndicate the di ||erence between
successors and | imi ts which are |or us the predicates o| natura|
mu| ti p|e~bei ng .
Theunion ofa set is the set constituted byt hee|ements oftbe
e|ements of. Thi s i s rel ated to a very i mportant operator o| the
onto|ogy o|the mu| ti p| e, the operator o|dissemination. The uni on
o|E ' breaks open' thee|ements o|E andco| | ects a| | the products o|
thisbreaking-open,a| | thee|ementscontainedi nthee|ementswhose
counti ng-|or-one E assures.
An examp| e. take ourcanoni ca| examp| e o|three, the setT that
makesa trip|eto|thevoid,thesi ng|eton o|thevoi dandthe pai ro|
the voi d and i ts si ng|eton. |t i s wri tten 0, 0 , ( 0, 0 . What i s the
uni ono|T?
Thehrste|ement o| T i s 0, whi ch has no e| ements. It there|ore
donates no e|ements to the uni on. The seconde|ement is 0 , whose
si ng| e e| ement i s 0. Thi s | atter e|ement wi | | |eature i n the uni on.
|ina| |ythethi rde|ementi s 0, 0 , whosetwoe| ementsare0 which
wea| readyhave and 0 . Soi ntheendtheuni ono|T,theseto|the
e|ementso|i tse|ements,i scomposedo|0and 0 . iti sthepai r 0, 0 .
Thati st osay,ourD, orthenumbertwo. Thedi ssemi nati ono|three
is no other than two. We state i n passing this wi | | be c| arihed i n
9. I 8 thattheunion o|T is ' sma| |er' thanT itse| |.
80 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
9. I 6. Theposi ti ono|ordi nal swithregardto uni on is mostpecul i ar.
Ci venthatan ordi nal W i stransitive, al l itselements are al soparts.
And this means that tbe e|ements oftbe e|ements of w, ubicb are
a|so tbe e|ements oftbe arts ofw, are tbemse|ces e|ements ofw.
|n the uni on o| an ordi nal we hndnothi ng but the elements o|that
ordi nal . That is to say that the union o|an ordi nal isa artoftbe
ordina|. || we denote the set ' uni on o| E' by .E, then, |or every
ordi nal , .W C W.
Thi sproperty i scharacteristical l ynatural . thei nterna| homogene-
ityo|anordi nal issuch thatdi ssemi nati on, breaki ngopenthatwhich
itcomposes,neverproducesanythingotherthana parto|itsel|. Dis-
semi nati on, when it i s appl ied to a natural multi pl e, del i vers only a
' shard' o| that mul ti pl e. Nature, stabl e and homogenous, can never
' escape' itsproperconstituentsthrough dissemi nation. Or. i nnature
there is no non-natural ground.
9. I 7. Thatthe union o|an ordi nal shoul d be a parto|thatordi nal ,
orthattheelements o|i tselements shoul d be el ements,bri ngsusto
thequesti on. are theya|| Dowe ul ti matel yhnd noteven a ' parti al '
part orroerpart, compare 4. I2 , butonl ytheordinalwebegan
with? Itcoul dwel l be that ecery elementcan be |oundas element o|
an el ement, since the internal |abric o| an ordi nal is entirely intri-
cated. In that case,.W W. Not on| y woul d dissemination return
only natural materi al s, but i t woul d restore the i ni ti al totality. The
di ssemi nati on o| a natural set woul d be a tauto|ogica| operati on.
Whi ch is to say that it woul d be absol utely in vai n. we coul d then
concl ude that nature doesnota||ouitse|fto oe disseminated.
9. I 8. Thi s seductivethesi s i s verihedin tbe case of|imitordina|s, i|
such a caseexi sts.
Take any element H j whatsoever o| a l i mi t ordi nal L. We have
shown in 9. I 4 that between H] and L necessari l y comes an inter-
cal atedelementH_q in such a |ashi onthatwe always have whatever
the element u the chai n H[ H_ L. ut, in addi ti on, when we
di ssemi nateL the element Hj wi l l be |oundagai nin the uni on, as an
element o| H_ . Consequently,ecery elemento|L |eatures in .L, the
uni on o| L. And, as we have seen, conversely 9. I 5 , that every
elemento|.L is anelemento|L since.LC L , itonl yremainsto
concl ude thattheel ementso|Landthoseo|.Lareexactlythesame.
Whi ch is to saythat L i s identical to .L.
To di ssemi nati on, the l i mit ordi nal opposes its i nhnite sel |-
coalescence. |t isexempl ari l ynatural , in so |aras, in bei ng' di ssected' ,
i tsel ementsdo notal ter. Itisits own di ssemi nation.
b\LLLbb1\W PWL L11. mL 1W1W1L 8
9. I 9. A successorordi nal , ontheotherhand, resi sts bei ngidentihed
with its dissemi nation. ltremai nsincxcess o|its uni on.
Let' sconsiderasuccessorordi nal W. ydehni ti onithasamaxi mal
e|ement H [ . Now it i s i mpossi bl ethatthi sel ementshoul d be|ound
i nthe uni ono|W. I|i twere |ound, thatwou| dmeanthatitwasthe
e|emento|anothere|ement,H_q o|W. soH [ H_q andH j woul dnot
be maxi mal . The maximal e|ement H necessari|y makes tbe differ-
encebetueen w and.w. There i satleastonee|emento|asuccessor
ordi nal thatbl ocksthe pure and si mpl edi ssemi nati ve restorati on o|
i tsmu| ti ple~bei ng. Asuccessor,un| i kea | i mi t, i s' contracted' , a|tered,
by dissemi nati on.
9. 2O. Inmyview,thi scontrastis o|thegreatestphi l osophi ca| i mpor-
tance.Theprevai | ingidea i sthatwhathappens ' atthe | i mit' i smore
complex,and also more obscure, thanthatwhich i sin play ina suc-
cession,ori na si mp| e'onemorestep' . Fora | ongti mephi l osophi ca|
specu|ation has |ostered a sacra| i sation o| the | i mi t. What I have
cal ledelsewhere
i
the' suture' o| phi l osophytothepoem rests| argely
uponthi ssacral isation. TheHei deggeri anthemeo|theOpen, o|the
deposition o| a cl osure, i s the modern |orm o| the assumpti on o|
thel i mi tasa wrenchi ngaway|rom counting, |romtechni que, |rom
the succession o|discoveries, |rom the seri a| ity o|Reason. There is
anaura o|the l imit, and an unbei ngo|successi on. The ' heart come
|rom another age' aspi res and thi s horizon-e||ect is on| y captured,
so i t seems, by the poem to a movement across those ' inhnite
meadows where a| | timestands sti l | ' .
,
What the onto|ogy o| the mu| ti pl e based in a contemporary
Platonism teaches us i s, on the contrary, that the di |hculty resi des
in successi on, and that there, a| so, resides resistance. Every true
test |or thought originates i n the | ocal i sab| e necessity o| an addi -
ti onal step, o| an unbroachable begi nni ng, whi ch i s nei ther fused
through the i nhnite repl eni shment o| that which precedes it, nor
identica| to i ts di ssemi nati on. To understand and endure the test
o| the addi ti onal step, such is the true necessity o| ti me. The l i mi t
is a recapitu|ation o| that whi ch composes it, i ts ' pro|undi ty' i s
|a| |aci ous, it i s in vi rtue o|its havi ngnogas thatthe | i mi tordi na| ,
or any mul ti pl icity ' at the | i mi ts' , attracts the evocative and hol l ow
power o| such a ' pro|undity' . The empty space o| the successor
is more redoubtab| e, it i s tru|y pro|ound. There i s nothi ng more to
thi nkinthe| i mi tthan in that whi chprecedesit. uti nthesuccessor
there is a crossi ng. The audacity o|thoughti s not to repeat ' tothe
| i mi t' that which i s a| ready entire|y retai ned wi thi n the situation
which the |imit |imits, theaudacity o|thoughtconsi sts in crossi nga
8Z L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
space where nothing is given. We must |earn once more how to
s ucceed.
9. 2I . asi ca| l ywhat i sdi |hcul tinthe limit i snotwhat itgivesusto
thi nk, but its existence. And what is di |hcul t i n succession i snot its
exi stence ( as soon as the void i s guaranteed, it |ol l ows i nel uctably
butthatwhich begi ns in thoughtwiththi sexi stence.
And so, speaking o|the l i mi t ordi na| , the question returns, ever
morei nsi stent. dol i mit ordi na| sexist ? Onconditiono|theexistence
o|the voi d, there i s I , and 2, and 3 . . . , al l successors. ut a | i mi t
ordina| ?
Thereaderwi | l havereal i sed. wehndourselvesont hevergeo|the
deci si onontheinhnite. Nohope o|rocingtheexistenceo|a si ng|e
| i mit ordi na| . We must make thegreat modern decl arati on. the inh-
ni te exists,and, what i smore,itexi stsi na who||y bana|sense,being
neither revealed re| i gi on , nor proved mediaeva| metaphysics , but
being si mp| y decided, under the i nj unction o|being, i n the |orm o|
number. A|| our preparati ons amount on| y to saying, to being able
to say, that the i nhnite can be thought in tbe form ofnumber. We
know it, at least |or that which |a| l s wi thi n the natural ontological
horizon o| number. the ordi nal s. That is i nhnite whi ch, not being
voi d, meanwhi l e does not succeed. It i s ti me to announce the
|ol l owi ng.
Axi om o| I nhni ty. P lmtordnal cxsts.
| 0
KCCUttCHCC, Ot | HUUCtOH
IO. I . A momentary pauseto begin with. l et' s recapitulate whatthe
ordi na| sgive usto thi nk as regards beingqua being, |romtheview-
pointo|a phi losophy i n|ormed by mathematical ontology.
IO. 2. The ordi nal s are, because o| the i ntemal stabi l ity o| their
multiple~bei ng the maxima| identity between belonging and i nc| u-
si on, between ' hrst' presentation through the multi pl e, as element,
and re-presentati on through i ncl usi on, as part andthe total homo-
geneity o|thei rinternal composi ti on every e|ement o|anordi nal i s
an ordinal , theontological schema o|natura|mul ti pl ici ty.
I O. J. The ordi nal s do not constitute a set. no mul ti pl e~|orm can
total i sethem. Thereexistpurenatural multi pl es,butNaturedoesnot
exist. Or, in Lacani an terms. Nature i s not-al l , j ust as i s being qua
being, si nce noseto|a| | sets exi sts either.
1. Theanchori ngo|the ordinals in being as such i stwo|ol d.
The absol utely i ni ti al poi nt that assures the chai n o|ordi nal s o|
i tsbei ngi stheemptyset0,decidedaxi omatical l yassecul arised|orm,
or number~|orm, o| Nothi ngness. Thi s |orm i s nothing other than
the situati on~name o| being qua bei ng, the suture o| every si tua-
tion~being, and o|every l anguage, to thei r l atent bei ng. The empty
set being anordi nal , and there|ore a natural mul ti p|e, wemightsay.
thepoi nto|bei ngo|everysi tuati onisnatura| . Materi a| i smi s|ounded
uponthi sstatement.
84 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
IO. 5. The poi nt-| i mit that ' restarts' the existence o| the ordi na| s
beyond Creek number the hnite natura| whol e numbers, on Creek
number,seechapter I isthehrsti nhniteset,,deci dedaxiomatica|ly
asasecul arised|orm- andthusenti rel ysubtracted|romtheOne~ o|
i nhnite mu| ti p| icity.
From thi s poi nt o|view, the ordi nal s represent the modern scale
o|measurement con|ormi ng tothetwocruci al deci si onso|modern
thought o|natura| mu|ti p| ici ty. Theysaythat nothi ngness i sa |orm
o|natura| andnumerab| ebeing,andthatthe inhnite, |ar |rom being
retained intheOneo|a Cod, isomni present in nature,and, beyond
that, i neverys ituati on~bei ng.
I O. 6. Ourpassage through the ordi na| s or the | i mi ts o|our repre-
sentation o| them arranges them according to an untotal i sable
sequence. Thi s sequence ' starts' with 0. lt continues through the
natural who|e numbers ! ,Z, . . . ,n,n + I , . . . , etc. , numbers whose
|ormo|beingiscomosedoftbecoid i nthe|orms ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 ,
( 0, ( 0 , . . . , etc. . I ti scontinued by an i nhnite recommencement,
guaranteedbytheaxi om' a| i mi tordi nal exi sts' , which authorisesthe
i nscri pti on,beyondthesequenceo|natural who| enumbers,o|,the
hrst i nhnite ordi nal . This recommencement opens a new series o|
successi ons. ,+I , . . . ,+n, . . . ,etc.Thi sseriesi sc| osedbeyond
itse| |byasecond| i mi tordi na| , +,which inauguratesanewseries
o|successi ons, and so on. Thus we achieve the representation o|a
series o| ordi nal s, dep| oyed with no concei vabl e stoppi ng point,
which transits within the i nhnite beyond j ust as i nthe hnite.
I O. 7. The orderi ng pri nci pl e o| thi s sequence is i n |act be|onging
i tse| |. given two ordi nal s W, and W, then W, e W,, orW, e W, ,
or W, W, . e| onging, a uni que ontol ogical re|ation because it
governs the thi nking o| mu|ti pl e~being as such, i s also that which
total l y orders the series o|ordi nal s. So that, i |W i s an ordi nal and
S W its successor, then W e S W . So that, i |n is a natural whol e
number a hnite ordi nal and n

a ' | arger' whol e number, then n E

n

. And so that, |or anynatural whol enumbern whatsoever, n e

( thehrst i nhnite ordi nal , etc.
I O. 8. There are three types o| ordi nal a|ter the modern deci si ons
whi ch imosethe voi d andthe i nhnite .
I Theempty set, 0, is the i naugural poi nt o| being.
Z The successor ordi nal s adj oi n to thei r predecessor one element,
namel ythat predecessoritsel |. Thesuccessoro|W iscal ledS W .
LL\LWLL, \ 1WL\L1\W 85
Wisthemaxi mal elementi nS( W , andthepresenceo|amaxi mal
elemental lowsustocharacterisesuccessors i na purel yi mmanent
( non-seri a| |ashi on. Successorordinalsgiveusanumericalschema
|orwhatitmeanstosay' onemorestep' . Thi sstepconsistsa| ways
i nsupp|ementinga| | thatonehasatone' sdi sposa| , wi tha uni que
mark|orthatal | . Totake' onemorestep' comesdowntomaki ng
one o|a| | o| thegi ven mu|tipl icity, and adj oi ni ngthatone to i t.
The new si tuati on i s ' maxi mal i sed' . it contai ns one term that
domi nates a| | the others.
3 The| i mitordi na| shave no maxi mal interna| e|ement. Theymark
the beyond proper to a series wi thout stoppi ng poi nt. They do
not succeed any particul ar ordi nal , but it can be sai d that they
succeed a|| the ordina|s o| the sequence o| whi ch they are the
| i mi t. No ordi na| i n thi s sequence i s ' c| oser' to the |imit ordi na|
than any other. For a thi rd ordi na| , and u| ti mate|y an ' i nhni ty'
intheintuitivesenseo|a serieswi thnostoppi ngpoi nt o|ordi -
na| s, wi l | interca| ate themse|ves accordingto theorder-re| ati on,
whi ch i s be|onging between every ordi na| o|the sequence and
the l i mi t ordi nal . The | i mi t ordi nal adheres to everythi ng that
precedes it. Thi s i s speci hcal l y i ndicated by its identity wi th i ts
owndi ssemi nati on ( L .L . Thel i mi ttota|isesthesequence, but
doesnotdistinguisb anyparticul arordi nal within i t.
IO. 9. |ustasa l i mi tordi na| i sstructural | ydi ||erent|roma successor
ordi na| asregardsthei nterna| maxi mum, andasregardsdissemi na-
tion , sothe' passagetothel i mi t' isanoperation o|thoughtentirely
di ||erent |rom ' taki ng onemore step' .
Succession i s, i ngenera| , a more di[cu|tl oca| operation thanthe
global operationo|passage tothe l i mi t. Successi ongives usmoreto
thinkaboutthandoesthel i mit. Thewi despreadviewtothecontrary
stems |rom the|act that,notbeing' absolute|ymodern' , westi l | tend
tosacra| i sethei nhniteandthe| i mi t,which istosay. retai nthemsti | |
in the |orm o|the One. A secu| ari sed thought, subtracted |rom the
One andthe sacred, recognises that the most redoubtable problems
are loca| prob|ems, probl ems o|the type. ' Howto succeed? ' , ' How
totakeonemore step? ' .
IO. I O. Thespace o|theordi na| sal lows ust odenet hei nhnite and
thehni te. An ordi nal is hnite i |, in thechai n o|order governed by
be|onging, itcomes be|ore. Iti si nhnite i |i tcomesa|ter ( i ncl ud-
ing itse| | .
We wi l | hndthat, j ustas Dedeki nd' s intuition suggested, onl ythe
exi stenceo|ani nhniteordi na| permi tsustodehnethehni te. Modern
8 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
thoughtsaysthatthe hrstsi tuati on,the bana| situation, is thei nhnite.
The hnite is a secondary si tuati on, very speci al , very si ngul ar,
extremel y rare. The obsessi on with ' hnitude' is a remnant o| the
tyrannyo|thesacred. The ' deatho|Cod' doesnotdeliverustohni -
tude, but to the omni present i nhnitude o| si tuati ons, and, corre|a-
ti ve| y, to the i nhnity o|thethi nkab| e.
I O. I I . Thehna| syntheticrecapitu|ationo|the|actthattheordinals
give us to think bei ng qua being, i n its natural proposi ti on, is
complete. Now we must turn towards ourcapacity to traverse and
to master rational | y this donation o| being. One way to do so is
simply to proceed, i n thi s bound| ess |abric, to the carvi ng-out o|
Number.
IO. I2. lti sa b| essi ng|or oursubj ectivehnitudethattheauthority -
properlywi thoutmeasure~ o|natura| mul ti pl icitiesal | owsthatdiag-
ona| o|passage, oro|j udgement, which is reasoni ng by recurrence,
a|so ca| |ed complete induction and, i n the case o| i nhni te ordi na| s,
' transhnite i nduction' . ln |act thi s al one a| |ows us, i ntreati ngo|an
i nhnite domain and even, i | we consider the ordi nal s, one that is
i nhnitely i nhni te , to antici pate themomerttofconc|usion.
Suppose that we wish to show thata|| ordi na| s possess a certain
property P. Orthatwe wi sh to establ i sh rational l y, with a proo|, a
universa| statement o| the type. ' For a| | x, i| x is an ordinal , then
P x ' . Howcan this beachieved? lti scertai nl yi mpossi b| etoconhrm
casebycasethatiti sso. thetaskwou|d bei nhnite|yinhnite.Neither
i s it possi bl e to consi der the 'set o|ordi nal s' , si nce such a set does
notexist. The' a| | o|theordi na| s' , i mp| i edinthe uni versalquantiher
o|thestatement' |ora|lx', cannot beconvertedinto 'all theelements
bel ongingtothescto|ordinal s' . Such a set i si nconsi stent see6. I I .
lt is preci sel y the al | evi ati on o| thi s i mpasse that is the busi ness o|
reasoni ng by recurrence.
I O. I J. Reasoni ng by recurrence combines one verihcation and the
demonstration o|one i mpl ication. Once in possessi on o|these two
moments,thestructurepropertotheordi nal sauthori sestheuni versa|
conc| usi on.
TakepropertyP. Webeginbyconhrmingthattheemptyset0pos-
sessesthi sproperty,wetestP |orthe' case' o|0. l|theemptysetdoes
not possessthe property P, it is poi ntlessto pursuethe i nvestigation.
l|one ordinal , 0, doesnot have property P, it i scertai nl y |alse that
all ordi nal s do. Suppose, then, that the statement P 0 is true, that
the test i nthe case o|0 i s posi ti ve.
LL\LWLL, \ 1WL\L1\W 87
We wi l l now try to prove the |ol l owing i mpl icati on. i fal l the
ordi nal sthatprecedesomeordinalW accordingtothetotal ordering
o|theordi nal s, whi chi sbe|onging havethepropertyP,tbenW al so
hasi t.
Note that thi s i mpl ication does not tel l us that an ordi nal wi th
property P exists. lt remai ns i n the hypotheti ca| register, according
to the genera| pattern. ' i| x i s so, then what |ol l ows x i s so' . The
impl ication is real l y universal , it does not speci |y any ordinal W. lt
says onl y that, |or every ordi nal W, supposi ng that those whi ch
precedeiti nthechai no|ordi na| ssati s|yP,onei scompel ledtoadmi t
thatW satishes i tal so.
ltisusual l ynecessarytodividethi sdemonstration suppos ingthat
it is possi bl e, which obvi ousl y depends on property P , by treating
thecase where we suppose W to be a successorseparatel y|rom the
casewherewesuppose itto be a l i mit si nceV isanyordi nal what-
soever,itcoul dbeoneortheother . Reasoni ng by recurrence,aswe
sawi nthe central i mpl ication that constitutes it,strongly bi ndsthat
which isthecase |or anordi na| V tothatwhi ch i sthatcase|or the
ordi nal s that precede i t. Now the rel ati onshi p o|a l i mi t ordi nal to
theanteriorordinal s( oneo|i nhniteadherence di ||ersradical l y|rom
that o|a successor whi ch, between itsel |and its predecessor,cl ears
an empty space . ecause o| thi s, the procedures o| thought and o|
proo|puti ntopl ayi nthetwocasesare usual l yheterogeneous. And,
as wemi ght expect, gi ven the phi l osophy o|thi s heterogeneity c.
9. I9 , it is general l y the case o| the successor that is the most
di |hcult.
Assume thatwe haveverihed thetruth o|P( O , and thatwe have
proved the i mpl ication ' i |, |or everyordi nal uthatprecedesV that
belongs to W. order is belonging , it i sthecasethat P u , then it i s
al sothecasethatP W ' . Wecanconcl udethata||ordi nal ssati s|y P,
inspite o|the|actthatthi s' al | ' notonl yal l udesto an i nhnite|y inh-
ni te immensity o|multi pl es, but that, even so, it does not make an
All. lt is truly the i nhnite and i nconsi stency ' conquered word by
word' .
IO. I4. What authorises such a passage to ' al l ' , such an ambiti ous
'momento|concl usi on' ? Theauthori sati on i sgranted usbya |unda-
mental propertyo|theordi nal sasontol ogica| schemao|thenatural
multiple. thei r'atomi sti c' character,theexi stence, |oreveryproperty
P,o|a minima|support |or this propertyassoon asoneordi na| pos-
sessesit. See 8. IOand 8. I 5 .
l | theconcl usi onwere|alse~ i | i t werenotthecasethatal l ordi nal s
possess property P ~ that woul d mean that there was at l east one
88 L\WLcb! WP\PL \L1L1L11cb
ordi na| which di d not possess property P. Thi s ordi na| wou|d then
possess the property not-P, not-P meaning si mpl y 'not possessing
property P, bei ng a non-P' .
ut, i |thereexi stsanordi nal thatpossesses property not-P, tbere
exists a sma||est ordina| ubicb ossesses tbis roperty rtot-l, by
vi rtue o| the atomistic pri nci pl e, the pri nci pl e o| mi ni mal ity. And,
si nceit i sthesmallestto possess property not-P, a| | those which are
sma| |erthan it must possess property P.
We cou| d obj ect. these ordi na| s ' sma| |er than it' may not exi st,
becausei tis possi b|ethatthemi ni mal ordi na| |orthepropertynot-P
is the voi d, whi ch is not preceded by anythi ng. ut no. since hrst
momento|our procedure wehaveverihedpreci sel ythat0 possesses
the property P, the mi ni mal ordi nal |or not-P cannot be d. Thus it
does make sense to speak o|ordi nal ssmal l erthan it,theyexist, and
mustal l possess property P.
Now ourcentral i mpl icati on, supposed proved, sai dexactlythat,
i | al| the ordinals smaller than a gi ven ordi nal possess property P,
thenthatordi na| a| sopossessesit.Wehavereacheda |ormalcontra-
diction. thatthe supposedmi ni mal not-P must be a P. Iti snecessary
then toconc| udethatthis | atter does notexistandthatthere|ore a| |
ordi na| sdo possess property P.
Thus the ontol ogi cal substructure o|natural muti p| ici ties comes
to |ound the |egitimacy o|recurrence. Our verihcation the case o|
0 and our demonstration i | P u |or a|| u such that u W, then
P W a| so , i |iti spossi b| e whi chdependsonP. . . andonourmath-
ematical know-how , authorises theconcl usi on |or 'all ordi nal s' .
I O. I 5. We have remarked, in studying Peano' s axiomatic see 5. J
thatreasoni ngbyrecurrencei sa |undamental giveno|seria|numeri-
ca| ity,o|whichthenatura| who|enumbersareanexampl e. lti squite
natura| that it shoul d extend to that ' universa| series' composed by
the ordi nal s. ut the great di ||erence is that, whereas in Peanothe
pri nci pl eo|i nducti onorrecurrenceisanaxi omatic|ormora |ormal
di sposi ti on, here, si nce it i s |ounded i n being i n the theory o|the
pure mul ti pl e , it i s a tbeorem that is, a property deducib|e |rom
the ordi na| s.
Iti so|theessenceo|thenatural mu| ti p| e, whichescapesal l totali s-
ingthought,to submit itse| |nonethelesstothatinte||ectua| ' capture'
whi chisthe inductiveschema. Here,oncemore,beingi s|oundtobe
amenabl etothoughti nthat|ormo|Numberwhich istheconcl usi on
|or ' al l ' , proceedi ng both |rom theverihcation |or oneonl y here, 0
and |rom a genera| procedure whi ch trans|ers the property o|what
comes ' be|ore' predecessor or endless series, dependi ngon whether
LL\LWLL, \ 1WL\L1\W 8
it is a case o|a successor ordi nal ora limit ordi nal to whatcomes
' a|ter' . Number i s that which accords bei ng to thought, i n spite o|
the i rremedi abl eexcesso|the |ormerover the l atter.
IO. I6. Reasoni ng by recurrence is a proo|-procedure |or universal
statementsconcerningordi nal s. Ital l owsustoconcl ude. utthere is
amorei mportantusageo|recurrence,oro|transhnitei nducti on,one
which al |ows us toattain tbeconcet. This is inducticedenition.
Suppose thattheai m o|ourthi nki ng is notto prove thatthi sor
thattype o|mul ti pl e, |orexampl e ordi nal s, has property P, but to
dehne property P i n a way that would al low us tben to test it on
mul ti pl es. A wel l -known di |hculty i n such a case is that ue don't
knouinadcanceubetberaroerty dened in |anguage is 'app|ica-
o|e'toapuremu|ti|euitboutinconsistencyresu|ting.Wehaveseen,
|or example in 2. I I , that the property ' not bei ng an e|ement o|
itsel|'doesnot appl yto anyexi sti ngset, andthat its per|ect |ormal
correctnessdoesnota|terthe|actthat, handl edwi thoutcare, i t| eads
totherui n, bywayo|inconsi stency, o|a| l |ormal thought. uthow
canweintroducel i mi tationsandguarantees,i |l anguageal onecannot
supportthem?Theprocedureo|dehnitionbyrecurrence,ori nductive
dehnition,answers thi squestion.
I O. I 7. What wi l l |oundthe legitimacy o| the procedure thi sti me i s
the |act that, with the ordinal s, we have at our di sposal a sort o|
universa| scale, whi ch a| lows us to dehne property P at successice
|ece|s,withoutexposingourselvestothatdangero|i nconsistencythat
attendsonanysupposi ti ono|anAl l . Inductivedehniti onisa rami-
cationo|theconcept. property Pwi l l notbedehned 'in general ' , but
al waysasi ndexedto a certai nlevel , and the operatorso|thi sindex-
ation will be the ordina| s. Here, once agai n, beingcomes to the aid
o|hnitude, in assuri ng |or ourthought, which the domai n o|being
as pure mul ti pl eexceeds on all sides, thatitcanproceedin steps, in
|ragments.
IO. I 8. In con|ormity with the typology o| ordinal s, whi ch di sti n-
guishes three types the voi d, successors, l i mits , our procedure is
divided intothree.
I We hrst dehne ex|icit|y, with a statement, level 0 o| the pro-
perty. An exp| i ci t dehni ti on assumes that we have a property ~
say, Q ~ a|ready dehned, and that we can a|hrm that level 0 o|
P ~ say P~ is equica|ent to Q. We woul d then have. P_ x
Qx .
0 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L| L1L ||Lb
2 We then say that, if|eve| u o| P is dehned, P_, tben |eve| S u ,
thati s, P, _, , is dehned through an exp| ici t procedure tobei ndi -
cated. To saythatP_i sdehnedis to saythatthere is a property
~ ca| | it R ~ a| ready dehned such that P_ i s equiva|ent to it, so
Px R x . The exi stenceo|anexp| i ci tprocedure enab| i ng us
to pass |rom the dehni ti on o|P_tothato|P,_, means that there
isa |unctionfthatassures the passageo|R whichdehnesPto
a propertyf R whichwi | | dehneP, _, . Fi na| | y, we cansaythat'x
has the property P, _, ' means 'x has the property f( k ' , orthatf,
whi ch permits the ' passage' |rom the dehni ti on o| P _ to that o|
P, _, , is an expl ici toperation on R, hxedonceand |or a| | .
3 Fina| | y, wewi | | saythat,ifal | theleve| so|Pbelowa | i mi tordi na|
L have been dehned, say. P,, P_ ,P,, P,, e e , tben l eve| L o|
P, say |or examp| e P_, i s dehned by a ' recol lecti on' that can be
exp| i cated by that whi ch dehnes a| | the |eve|s anterior to it in
thi s process, uni on or di ssemi nati on genera| l y pl ays a deci si ve
role, |or reasonsgi ven in 9. I 7 . Usua| | ywe have something| i ke.
|or a gi venx, Px i strue, i |thereexi stsa |eve| be| owL, ca| l it
u, where u L, |or which P_x i strue. The limit |eve| , i ncon-
|ormity wi th its essence, wi | | assume a|l the i n|erior |eve|s and
wi | | not i ntroduce anythi ng new.
Thuswewi|| haveatourdisposa|notj ustasing|econceptP,butan
inhnite and inhnite|y ramihed |ami|y o|concepts, |rom P, exp|icit|y
dehned, up to the more considerab|e ordina| indexations P _, passing
through P,,P_, P_,, etc. We wi|| then be ab|e to saythatconceptP, as
unique concept, is dened by transnite induction, in the |o|lowing
sense.|oragivenx,Px will betruei |andon|yi|thereexistsanordina|
W such thatx possesses the property atleve|W.Wewou|d havethe
|o||owingequiva|ence. Px 'thereexists a WsuchthatPx ' .
Sothei nductivemasteryo|theconceptpassesbywayo|i tsordi nal
rami hcati on, and by way o|theequiva|ence between ' theconceptP
ho| ds|orx' and'theconceptPho| ds |orxat|ece| woftbatconcet' .
Thi sequi va|enceacoids a||mentioningoftbeA||.ltteststheproperty
Pnot' i ngenera| ' , butonone|eve| , thus |reeingit|romparadoxeso|
i nconsi stency.
I O. I 9. I sha| | give a most i nteresting examp|e, its i nterest i s both
i ntri nsic it sheds a keen | ight on thegenera| structure o|the theory
o| the pure mu| ti p|e, or onto| ogy. it proves that, thought in their
beingquabeing,mul ti p|esarestrati hed andmethodo| ogical wewill
see c|early the |unctioningo||eve|s i nthe dehnition o|theconcept .
LL\LWLL, \ 1WL\L1\W
The underl yi ngi dea i s t odehne, |or eachmulti ple, anontol ogi cal
rank, i ndexed on the ordi nal s, whi ch measures its ' di stance' , i n a
certai n sense, |rom that i ni ti al suture which is the empty set. We
could al so say that the rank is a measure o| the com|exity o| a
set, o| the immanent intrication o| the i nstances o| the voi d that
constitute i t.
Natural l y, itisi mpossi bl etospeako|' al l ' sets. todothati twoul d
benecessarytocol l ectthemastheelementso|a seto|al l sets, whi ch
wou|d be i nconsi stent. The prudent, gradual approach o|the i nduc-
tive procedure i s i ndi spensabl ehere.
The two i mportant operati ons o|set theory which al low one to
'step' |rom onesetto another are.
I Uni on, or the set o| elements o| elements o| the i ni ti al set, the
operationo|di ssemi nati on,whichwehavea| readymet compare
9. I 5 . Civen a set E, we denote its union by .F.
2 The set o| parts, whi ch consi sts o| 'gathering together' to make
one al l theparts o|the i ni ti al set, al l that i s i ncl uded i n that set
on belonging and incl usi on, see 7. J . We denote by( F theset
o|the parts o|l. Note thatthee|ements o|, l are theparts o|
l. i |e ( F , thene C F.
Wewi l l constructthe hierarchy o|ranks by means o|these two
operations . The property we wi l | try to dehne through transhnite
i nduction, according to the method expl ai ned i n IO. I8, wi l l be
denoted by x , to be read as. 'x possesses a rank' or. 'x i s we| l -
|ounded' . Ourthreestepswi l l be as |ol l ows.
I x|icit denition of tbe roerty at |ete| 0. We propose that
K
:
xisnottrueforanyx,i notherwordsthat
:
x isequi val ent
tox 0.
Z |niform treatment ofsuccessice |ece|s. We posi t that R, _, x i s
truei |and onl yi |x belongs tothe set o|parts o|thesetconsti -
tuted by al l the whi ch sati s|y K_. In otherwords, the rank at
successorlevel S u istheseto|partso|therankdehned|orthe
level whi ch the predecessor u i ndexes. This can be written as
|ol l ows. K, _ x y x K_y} } . i |x sati shesK, _ , theel e-
mentso|x sati s|y K_, andconsequentlyx is a part o|the set o|
sets whi ch sati s|y K_. Wecoul d al so wri te, denoting by K_ the
seto|x |or whi ch R_( x istrue.
Z L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
3 |niform treatment of |imit |ece|s. As wou| d be expected, it i s
uni on that is atworkhere. We wi l | saythat Rx i struei |x is
o|a rank whose index is sma||er than L, that i s, i |there exists
a u e L |or which R, x i strue. Thus the rank R reco| |ects all
thee|ements o|the ranks be|owi t, it isthe union o|theseranks.
With the same conventions as above, we can write. ,x E R_
x e .R |or all u sma| |er than L.
PropertyRistherebytota| l ydehnedbyi nduction. Wewi l l saythat
xpossessesa rank,orthatR,x withouti ndex i strue,i |a successor
or | i mi t ordi nal u exi sts |or which R, x is true. This property
' means' that one arrives at the complexity o| x, begi nni ng |rom 0
which dehnes level R o| the property , through the successive
emp| oyment o| union and o| passage to the parts, an employment
whose ' | ength' i smeasured by an ordi na| . the sma| |estordi na| N |or
whi ch R, x is true.
I O. 2O. That thi s procedure rea| | y ' works' , that it makes sense u| ti -
matel y to speak o|tbeproperty R, however, i snot sel |-evident.The
generosityo|natural bei ngconsi stsi nthe|actthatonecanrocethe
e||ectivity o|thi s rami hed determi nati on o|theconcept. '
Thus thought proceeds in its passage through being, under the
uni versa| | yintricated and hierarchised rule o|Nature, which doesn' t
exi st, but provides measurabl e steps. Number is accessi b| e to us
through the | aw Ol such a passage, at thesameti me as it sets the
condi ti ons ~ as we saw with the ordi na| s ~ |or this passage itsel |.
Number is thatthrough whi ch being organises thought.
| |
l3tUt3 YDOC lUHOCtS
I I . I . The ordi na| sdi rect|ygiveus theCreeknumbers. natura| who| e
numbers. We are even i n a position to attach a new, non-Creek,
|egitimacytotheadj ective ' natura| ' whi ch mathematici ans, with the
symptomatic subt|ety o|thei rnomi nati ons, adj oi n tothe civi| status
o|thesenumbers. theyare' natura| s' byvirtueo|the|actthat,wi thi n
the rea| m o| the hni te, they coi ncide purel y and si mp|y wi th the
ordi na| s, whi chconsti tutetheonto|ogica| schemao|thepure natura|
mu| ti p| e.
|oriti s' natura| ' toidenti|y,i nitsbeing,the|aceofnnmhcr that
is,o|who|enumber ~ a p| acewhoseexi stenceDedeki ndvai n| ytried
tosecure onthebasi so|theconsiderationo|'a|| thepossi b| eobj ects
o|mythought' ~ with thehrsti nhniteordi na| , whoseexi stencewe
decide, under the modern i nj unction o| being, as we enounce the
axiom ' a l i mi tordi nal exists' .
I I . 2. Tosaythat isthep| ace o|whol enumber has a precise set-
theoretica| meaning. what ' occupi es' the p| ace isthat which be| ongs
to it. Now, not on| y do a|| ordi na| s that precede a given ordi na|
be|ongtoi t, theyconstitutea||thee|ements o|thati ni ti a| ordi na| .
l n|act,weknowthattota|orderovertheordi na| sisrea| | ybe|ong-
ing see. 8. IO . And, consequently, an ordi na| sma| |er than a given
ordi na| Wi sprecise|yanordina|thatbe|ongstoV. Theimageo|an
ordi na| |orexamp|e, one l argerthan is as |o| | ows
0 e I e Z e . . . e n e n + I e . . . e u e u + I e . . . e V
4 L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
where al l the numbers in thechai n o| belongingconstitute precisely
the el ements o|W. Vi sual ised |ike this, the ordi nal W appears as a
sequence o| ' embedded' ordi nal s, whose ' length' is exactly W. There
are W | i nks i nthechai n i n orderto arrive at W. We might also see
an ordi nal W, contai ni ng exactly W ordi nal s al l those thatprecede
i t , as tbe number oftbatofubicb it is tbe name. Which i sanother
wayo|sayingthatitisidentihedwiththepl acewhereitspredecessors
i nsi st, being the reco| |ecti on o|thati nsi stence.
Thus the dehnition o| natural whole numbers is enti rely l i mpi d.
an ordi nal is a natural whol e number i | it i s an el ement o| the
hrst l i mit ordi nal u. ln whi ch case, the structure o| the pl ace o|
number is.
0 e I e Z e . . . e n e n e n + I e . . . e u
utwe must takecareto note that u itsel |, whi ch isthe name o|
the pl ace, isnotaartofit, si nce no set belongs to itse|| c. 8. I4 .
The placeo| whol e number,u, i s notanelemento|that place,i t is
nota ubo|e number. As is therst l i mitordi nal , it |o| lowsthatal l
whol enumbers, excepttheemptyset0 o|course, are successors.
I I . J. An attentive readermightobj ectas |ol l ows. l saythatu i sthe
hrst| i mit ordi nal . utaml sure thata ' hrst'| i mi tordi nal exi sts ? The
Axi omo|lnhnity 9. 2O says onl y. 'al i mitordi nal exists' , itdoes not
speci |ythatthis ordi nal i s'thehrst' . Whatauthorisesustocall u the
' hrst l i mit ordi nal ' , or hrst i nhnite ordi nal ? ltcoul d well be that, as
soon as l announcethat ' a limit ordi nal exists' , a mu|titude o|them
appear,none o|which is' hrst' . Therecoul dbeani nhnitedescending
chai n o| such ordi nal s, j ust like the descendi ng chai n o| negative
numbers whi ch, it is clear, has no hrst term. no whole negative
number is 'the smal |est' , j ust as no whole posi ti ve number i s 'the
l argest' this second point i n |act comes back to saying that u, the
beyond and the pl ace o| the series o| positive numbers, is a l i mit
ordi nal .
ut i | l cannot unequi voca| l y determi ne and hx the hrst l i mi t
ordi nal , then what becomes o|my dehnition o|who| enumbers ?
I I . 4. We can overcome thi s obj ecti on, once more, thanks to that
greatpri nci pl eo|natural multi p| esthati smi ni mal i ty. Weknowthat,
gi ven a property P, ifan ordi na| exi sts that sati shes that property,
tben there isone and onl yonemi ni mal ordi nal that satishes i t. Take
theproperty ' bei nga l i mi tordi nal ' . There certai nl yexi sts anordi nal
that sati shes it, si nce the Axi om o|the lnhnite says precisely that.
WP\PL Ym\LL W\Lb 5
Thus,there exi stsoneandon| yone| i mit ordi na| thati smi ni ma| |or
thisproperty.Consequent|ywecanspeakwi thouthesitationo|a' hrst
| imitordi nal ' , oro|the' smal lestl i mi tordi nal ' , anditi stothisuni que
ordi na| thatwegivethepropername.There i sthere|orenoambi -
guity i nourdehnition o|natura| who| enumbers.
I I . 5. Wemustnever|osesighto|the|actthatnotationso|thetype
I ,2,n,etc. arecibers, i nthesenseo|codes,whi chservetodesignate
multip|es|abricated |rom thevoi da|one. Wehaveknown |or a |ong
time( a| readyin8. 3 that I isinrea| itythesi ng|etono|thevoi d, that
i s, ( 0 , thattwoi sthe pai ro|thevoi dandthesi ngl eton o|thevoi d,
that i s, ( 0, ( 0 , that three is the tri p| et o|the voi d, the si ng|eton o|
the void,andthepai ro|thevoi dand si ngleton o|thevoi d, that i s,
( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 , etc. To exhi bi t |urther thi s weaving o|the voi d with
itse| |, |et's a|so write down the rea| being o| the ci pher 4.
( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 .
Evident|y4i s a seto||oure| ements, i ntheorder0, then ( 0 , then
( 0, ( 0 , then ( 0, ( 0 , ( 0, ( 0 . These |oure|ements are none other than
zero,I , 2 and3. Thee|ementso|a who|enumbercomprisepreci se| y
al l those numbers that precede it, whi ch is not surpri si ng, since we
haveshownabovethatthi sisthei nnermoststructureo|everyordi nal
( I I. 2 . Wecoul dwrite. 4 ( 0, ! ,2, 3 . And, as we have sai d, to pass
|rom 3 to4 ( as|rom any n to n + I , we' adj oi n' to thee| ements o|
3 ( oro|n the number 3 itsel |( orthe number n . Whi ch i snotsur-
pri si ng,si ncethi sis thegenera|dehnitiono|successi onin theordi na| s
9. 6 .
I twou|d obvi ous| y bei mpossi b| etousetheprocedure o|succes-
sion to 'step' |rom some who| e n, no matter how | arge, to the hrst
|imit ordi na| . This i s because , |et us repeat, i s not a who| e
number,itisthep| aceo|suchnumbers. Ani mportantl awo|thought
emergeshere( onewhi ch, wemightsayinpassi ng,theHege| i anhgure
o|Abso|uteKnowledge,supposedtobethe' l ast'hgureo|Consci ous-
ness,contravenes , whi chstatesthattbe|aceofsuccessiondoesnot
itse|fsucceed.
I I . 6. Once we have at our di sposa| the p|ace o| natura| who| e
numbers, their mu|ti p|e~being whi ch weaves the voi d through the
hnite, andthe lawo|successi onas | awo|ourpassagethroughthese
numbers, we ' redi scover'thec|assica| operations ( addi ti on and mu| -
ti p| ication |orexamp| e throughsi mp| etechni ca| mani pu|ati onsthat
ari se|romthegeneral pri nci pleso|i nductivedehni ti on,ordehni ti on
byrecurrence,exp| ainedand|egitimatedonthebasi so|natura| bei ng
in chapter ! 0. It is timetogivea new examp| e.
L\WLLb. WP\PL \L1L1L11Lb
I I . 7. Take a given number, say |or examp| e 4. We want to dehne
through induction a |uncti on F whose outcome will be as |o| |ows.
|oranynumbernwhatsoever there|ore|orecewho| enumber,and
therei sani nhnityo|them , F n isequa| tothesum4+n. Toachieve
thi s, we have at our di sposa| on| y one operator. ordi na| succession,
si ncethe on| ythi ngwe know i sthata| | thewhol enumbersexcept0
are successors. We wi | | proceed exact|y according to the schema
exp| ai ned i n I O. I 8, exceptthatwe will not haveto worry ourse|ves
aboutthe case o|| i mi tordi na| s since there are none be|ore . We
wi | | , as be|ore,useS n to denotethesuccessorordi na| o| thewho|e
number n.
! Wewi | | hrststate. F O 4 anexp| i ci t| ygivenva| ue,theunder|y-
ing intuition bei ngthat4 + 0 4 .
2 Then we wi l | proceed to the successi ona| i nduction by positing.
F S n S F n . A regu| ar and uni |orm re|ation between the
va| ue o|the |uncti on |or S( n and its va| ue |or n, a re|ationthat
uses only what we a| ready know, the operation o| succession,
dehnedi ngenera|ontheordi na| s. Theunderl yi ngi ntui ti oni sthat
4 + ( n+ ! 4+n + !, toreturntotheusua| ' calcu|ating' nota-
ti on where the successor o|n i s denoted by n + ! .
The val ue o|the |unction i s dehned entire|y by these two equa-
tions. Say, |orexamp|e,thatIwantedtoca| cu| ate F 2 . Iwou| dhave
the |o| |owi ng mechanica| sequence
F O 4
F ! F S O S F O S 4 5
F( 2 F S ! S F ! S 5 6
Wecan see c| ear| ythatsuch a schema is a truedenitionofaddi-
tion, through the use o| recurrence, on the basi s o| the operation o|
successi on al one. Once we have obtained thi s genera| i nductive
schema o|addi ti on, mul ti p| icationcanbesi mi | ar| ydehned. Takethe
|unction to be dehned, P n , whose va| ue i s n mul ti pl ied by 4. We
begi n the induction thi s time with ! and not with 0, stating that i|
Fn is as above dehning4 + n i nductively
P ! 4 gui di ngi ntui ti on . 4 X I 4
P S n F P n guidi ng i ntui ti on . 4 X n+ I 4 + 4X n
WP\PL Ym\LL W\Lb 7
Thesetechnica| manoeuvresareo|nodi rectinterest. Theyserveonl y
toconvince usthatwho| enumbers thought i n thei rbei ng ordina| s
thatprecede , |abricated |rom hnitecombi nati ons o|the voi d are
i ndeeda|sothe sameoneswithwhichwecountandrecountwi thout
respite, astheepoch prescri bes usto do.
I I . 8. The phi | osophico-mathemati cal reconstruction o| whol e
numbers i s now complete. They do not derive |rom the concept
|rege , nor can thei r place be i n|erred |rom our possi bl e thoughts
Dedeki nd , noristhei r| aw| i mitedtothato|anarbitrari | yaxi oma-
tisedoperati ona| held Peano . Theyare, rather, intheretroactiono|
a deci si on on thei nhnite,thatparto|numberwhi chbeing provides
to us i n its natura| andnite hgure.
Thewhole numbers are Nature itsel |, i nso |ar as it i sexposedto
thought only tothel i mitedextento|its caacityfornitude.Agai n,
thi sexpositioni spossi b|eon| yoncondi ti ono|apoi nto|i nhnity,the
l i mi tordi nal , theexi stenti al guaranteeo|whol enumber. Thi spoi nt
o| inhnity is i mmense i n relation to the who| e numbers, si nce, sub-
tracted |rom successora| repeti ti on, it constitutes the p|ace o|thei r
total exercise, a pl acewi thouti nternal l i mits ( successi oncana|uays
continue . Neverthe|ess, it is mi nute in re|ation to the pro|usi on o|
natura| i nhnite bei ng beyond its hrst term . Whol e number is the
|orm o| being o|the hnite ' a|most nothi ng' dep| oyed by being qua
being between thevoi dandthehrst i nhni ty.
I I . 9. lt is onl y i n an anti ci pati on without sol i d |oundati on, and in
homage to thei r antiquity, that we ca| l the natura| whol e numbers
' numbers' . We have a| ready remarked 8. 8 that, sti | | without a
genera| concept o| number at our di sposal , it woul d be i | |egitimate
tosaythattheordi nal swere numbers. Now, the who| enumbersare
noneotherthantheordi nal s. Andnumber,or ratherNumber,qual i -
hes a type o|beingo|thepure mul ti p| ewhich exceeds theordi nal s.
Unti|wehavemadesenseo|thi stype,i nsucha waythatitbecomes
app| i cab|e to all species o| number whol e, relative, rational , real ,
ordi nal , cardi na| , we can onl y speak o| ' number' in a sense sti l l
insu|hciently l i berated |rom its operati onal i ntui ti on, or |rom the
hi storica| heredity o|thi ssi gni her.
utourpreparationsarecomp|ete. Thehomagepai dtotheCreek
numbers i son| ythe | ast act o|a vast introducti on, genea|ogica| and
thenconceptua| . Now it i snecessaryto dene Number.
J
LHtOO_y O lUHOCt.
LCHHtOH, LtUCt, LUtS, yCS
| Z
DC LOHCCt O lumOCt.
PH CVCHt3 lOHH3tOH
I2. I . The hrst part o| thi s book was historica| andcritica| astudy
o|thegreatenterpriseso|thepast . Thesecondwasconstructive and
conceptua| the determi nati on o|the ordi na| s as schema o|natura|
mu| ti p| icity, on the basi s o| the concept o|transi ti ve sets . ln thi s
thi rd part, we are goi ng to proceed regressi ve| y, axi omatica| | y. we
sha|| begi nwithageneralden/t/on o|Number,a remarkab| ysi mp| e
dehnition invo|ving on| y the concept ' ordi na| ' . Then, by way o|
increasing|y specihc determi nati ons, we sha| l address the essenti a|
attributeso|theresu|tingconcepto|Number. tota|order,theprocess
o| cutting, and hna| | y ~ i n the | ast p| ace on|y ~ operati ons . ln so
doing,we sha| | demonstratehowa| | o|ourtraditi ona| numbers the
who| es, the rationa| s, the rea| s, and the ordi na| s themse| ves, con-
cei ved and hand|ed as Numbers are on| y articu|ar cases o| the
genera| concept.
Inmyview,thethreemosti mportantaspectso|these proceedings
are as |ol l ows.
I Consi derations o| order and operations ari se |rom the i ntri nsi c,
or ontol ogi ca| , dehni ti on o| Number. Number i s there|ore not
itse| |an operati ona| concept, it is a particu| arhgure o|the pure
mu| ti p|e, which can be thought in a structura| and i mmanent
|ashi on. The operati ona| di mensi ons are on|y subsequent
traits. Number is not constructed, on the contrary, its very
being makes possi b|e a|| o| the constructi ons in whi ch we
engage it.
0Z \W1\L\LT. LL1W111\W, \LL, L\1b, TLb
2 The ordi na| s constitute the base materi a| |or the dehnition o|
Number, its natura| onto| ogi ca| horizon. ut, taken in a| | their
general ity,Numbersare' non-natural ' deducti ons|romthi snatura|
materi al .
3 Ourtradi ti ona| numbers are on| y very specihc cases, which cer-
tai n| y |al l under the general and uni hed concept o|Number but
bynomeansexhaustit.Thereremai nsani nnumerab|eimmensity
o|Numbers we have notyet thoughtor used.
I2. 2. Denition. A ^umbcr s thc conj ont gvcnncss ol an ordnaI
and a part ol that ordnaI.
A Numberwi|| bedenotedbythe|etterN, |ol l owed by i ndicesto
disti ngui sh between severa| di ||crent Numbers.
In otherwords, a numberN i sconstituted by.
~ anordi nal W,
~ a subset F i ncl uded in thi sordi na| , such thatF c W.
The ordi na| wi l | be ca| l ed the matter o| Number, which we wi | l
denote by M N .
The part o| the ordi na| wi | | beca| led the form o| the Number,
whi chwewi | | denote by F N .
Thatpart o|thematter whi chi snoti nthe |orm,thati s, thosee|e-
mentso|theordi na| V whi chare noti nthepartF N , constitutethe
residueo|theNumber. We denote this by R( N . Theresi due isequa|
to the matter minus the |orm, andthere|ore to theset M N ~ F N .
It i s cl earthat, i |we add together the |orm and the residue, we
endup withthewho| eo|the matter. There|ore, using.tostand|or
uni on see 9. I 5 . F N . R N M N .
Si nce a Number i s entire|y determi ned byits matter an ordinal
andi ts |orm a part o|thatordi nal , it wi l l o|ten beconvenient to
write itasa pai r M N , F N , withtheconventionthattheordina|-
matter i swri tten to the | e|t, andthe |orm to the right.
I2. J. lnexami ni ngthisdehni ti on, thereadermustobserveanumber
o|precauti ons.
, I We are deal ingwi tha pure dehni ti on, a priori |or themoment.
iti so|nouse,norisi tpossi b| e, totryto 'recogni se' straightaway,in
thi s dehni ti on, any o|our |ami | i arnumbers.
I wi | | gi ve an examp| e. take as mattertheordi nal I whoseonto-
|ogical composi ti on i s 0 , the si ng|eton o|the void , and, as |orm,
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLWPL W\1WP1\W 0J
the ordi na| 0, thevoid,which is o|coursea part o| I , as it is a part
o|every set 7. 9 . Usingtheaboveconventi on, wehave theNumber
N ( ! ,0 . A| | weknowi sthat,accordingtothedehniti on theresu|t
o| an ordi nal and a part o| thatordi na| , N is a Number. The si gns
` I ` and ' 0' do not di rectly re|er to any Number, si nce we have not
yetevenestab| i shedthatwearedea| i ngwi thNumbers. ln|act,what
these si gns I and 0 are goi ng to indicate here ~ each on i ts own
account, a matter and a |orm ~ cannotbeunderstoodas Numbers,
sincewedo not discern in thei rwritingthe|undamental dua|given-
ness o| al | Number. a matter and a |orm. A Number must i nvo|ve
two marks, that o| its matter and that o| its |orm. now ' I ' is on| y
onemark,asi s' 0' . ltwou| dthere|orebei | l usoryto' recognise' i nthe
Number ( I , 0 any |ami l i ar number whatsoever, on the pretext that
one ' recognises' I or 0. At the moment, we have i n I ,0 on| y an
abstractexamp|eo|aNumber,con|ormi ngtotheconcepto|Number
gi veni nthedehnition.
|ust as the prisoners in P| ato' scave once again make the descent
|rom the Idea o| Number back down to the empi ri ca| numbers ,
wewi | | demonstratemucb|ater,i nchapterI 6, thattheNumber I ,0
is the true concept o|the |ami | i ar negative number -I . ut at thi s
stage it i s essenti al that the reader consider the examp| es as si mp| e
c|arihcations o|thedehnitiono|Number,andnotseekto reconnect
them to thecavernousempi ri ca| domai n o|numbers.
( 2 Themattero|aNumberi sanordi na| , wehavesaidenoughabout
ordina|s|ortheretobenomysteryaboutthi s. Ontheotherhand, the
|orm o|a particu| arNumber isconstrained on|yto be a art o|that
ordina|,asetinc|udedintheordi na| . Thegenera|concepto|a partor
subset issomewhati ndeterminate and, when the matter happens to
be inhnite, o||ers no|ootho|d|orintuition. lnparticular, note.
~ thatthi s part might be empty compare theexampl eabove ,
=
that thi s part might be the entire ordi na| , i| we take |or matter
the l i mi t ordi nal , and |or |orm thi s same ordi na| which is a
'tota| part' o| itse| | , we obtai n a who| | y permi ssi b| e Number
con|orming to the dehniti on , which is written N , , we
wi | | see i n chapter I 6 that there are exce||ent reasons to a|| ow
that thi s Number i s none otherthan the ordi na| itse| |, but at
themomentthi s is notat a|| obvi ous,
~ that thi s part does not necessari | y have to be contai ned or con-
nected asone, itcou| dbedispersed,| acunary, composedo|scat-
terede|ements, andsoon, |or examp|e, i |we take as matterthe
04 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
| i mi t ordi nal , we can take as |orm the set constituted by the
who|e numbers 3, 5S7and ! I 65. These thrce hnite ordi na| s are
a| | e|ements o| , andthere|ore,takentogether,they|orma part
o| .Wewi | | haveaquitepermi ssi b|e number N= , 3, 5S7, I I 65 ,
whose |orm hasthreecomp|ete|y separate e|ements.
I2. 4. These|orma| possi bi | itiesmakea vi sua| i sati ono|Numberdi |-
hcu|t. We can i magi nespati al designs somehow l i kethi s.
Dl0lB0m8IIcl
l0SlUu0
l) P0mDcI WhOSc lOlm l S CDBBcClc0
Ol0lB8m8lIcl

f0SlUu0
3)PumDcl WhOSc lDlm l S VOl0
Ol0lB0m8lIcl
Z) PumDcl WhOSc lDlm lS 0l SQclSc0
Ol0B8lm8lI0l

4)PumDcl WhOSc lOfm l0KcS uQ lhc
WhDlc Dl lhc m8lIcf
ut doubt|ess the si mp|est way is to have recourse to a | i near
arrangement seebe|ow . Thishgurationi sbasedonordina|| inearity,
conceived as a universa| series |rom which the being o|Number i s
deducted.
A | i nesegment,whosesupposedorigini stheordi na| 0, represents
the ' ordi na| axis` . We mark with an asterisk '` upon this axis the
mattero|theNumber,anordi nal W. We mark with anembo|dening
o|the | i nethe |orm o|the Number, part o|its matter. Therest,|e|t
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLW1PL W\1WP1\W 05
unchanged,represents the resi due. l|wewanttorepresenta particu-
l arordinal , wecandothi swi tha l ittleci rc| eon thearrow,wi ththe
name above or be| ow. With these conventions, a Numberwi | | |ook
l i kethi s.
IOrm W^ Ordi na| maHr

*
rsid Ordi na| s
Once agai n, this typeo|drawing can aid comprehensi on, butcan
a|sobeanencumbrance.Itspri nci pa| |ai | ing,whichitshareswiththe
|amous ' Venn di agrams' usedto teach schoo|chi l dren operations on
sets uni on, intersecti on,etc. , is that it habituates one to i magi ni ng
thata part o|a setis a sort o|conti nuous whol e, a compact nei gh-
bourhood. Now the so| e prerequi site o| a part i s that it shou| d
contai nonl ye|ementso|theseto|whi ch iti sa part. Theseelements
might very wel l be high|y di spersed, scattered to the |ar regi ons o|
theinitialset,andthevi sual schemao|a part,toi ndicate this di sper-
sion, must be ab| e to be punctured, |ragmented, dismembered. The
un|ortunate thi ng is that the drawing then |oses any i ntui ti ve val ue
itmighthavehad. onesi mp|ygetsthei mpressi onthattherearemdny
parts.Inl ooki ngatmyl i nesandtheirembol deni ngs,onemusta|ways
keep i n view, conceptua| | y, that there is no reason |or the |orm o|
a Number to be a conti nuous segment, but that it coul d wel l be
di spersed throughoutthe |ul | extent o|theordi na|~matter, as cou| d
theresidue.
|orexamp|e,theNumbermentionedabove,whichhas|or matter
the |imit ordinal and |or |orm the trip|et 3, 5S7, I I 65 , must be
representedsomehowl i kethis withtheaddi ti ona| compl icati onthat
the inhnity o| i snot truly ' commensurab| e' i na drawi ng .
3
M

bd
W

IOrm
1 1 bb U
W
*

Ordi na| s
I2. 5 The |ol l owing section i s enti rel y dedicated to a phi l osophica|
elucidation o|ourdehni ti on.
Wewi | | begi nwi ththecapi tal N wi thwhich I |urni shNumber.
In a| | attempts undertaken to determi ne the concept o| number,
the probl ems o| termi no| ogy bring the wei ght o|the event to bear
upontheresearcher.
0 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, Tcb
Take |or examp| e the appe| | ation ' i rrati ona| numbers' . It is tru|y
astoni shi ng to hnd such a designation atthe heart o|mathematica|
rationa| i ty. Thedoctrineo|'cuts'|orgedbyDedeki ndi snothi ngother
thanthedetermi nati on~ whol | yrati onal anddemonstrative~ o|the
concepto|i rrati onal number. utexact|ythesamecou| d be said |or
thetheory o| proporti ons in Eucl i d' s|ements. t is cl ear, then,that
' i rrationa| ' , i nthesemathematica|textswhoserati onal ityistranspar-
ent, paradigmatic even, no |onger has anysignication.
Wemightsaythatwhat makesi tse| |knownherei sa symptomo|
theradica| di ||erencebetueennominationandsignication. A signi -
hcati oni sa| waysdi stri butedthroughthe| anguage o|a situation,the
| anguage o|estab| i shedandtransmi tted know|edges. A nomi nation,
ontheotherhand,emerges|romtheveryi nabi | ityo|signihcationto
xanevent,todecideupon itsoccurrence,atthemomentwhenthis
event~ which supp|ementsthe situation with an inca|cu| ab| ehazard
~ isontheedgeo|itsdi sappearance. Anomi nationisa' poetic'i nven-
ti on, anewsigni her,whicha|hxesto| anguagethat|orwhi chnothing
can prepare i t. A nomi nati on,once theeventthatsustains it is gone
|orever, remai ns, i nthe void o|si gni hcati ons.
Now, at the moment o|the greatCreek cri si s o|number, when
the arri va| o| that at once i nevitab| e and enigmatic event made it
knownthatcertainre| ati onshi ps those,|orexamp| e,o|thediagona|
o| a square and i ts side cannot be ' numbered' wi thi n the code o|
exi sti ng numbers,theworda|ogos arri ved,saturatingandexceedi ng
themathemati ca| si tuati on. Thi sword designatesthatwhi ch, havi ng
no |ogos, nonethe|ess must be decided as number. It inscri bes in a
newsi tuati on o| thoughta nomi nation wi thoutsi gni hcati on. that o|
a numberwhich i s nota number.
Si nce that ti me, the word has | odged itse| |, without alteration,
i n mathemati ca| | anguage. It traverses trans| ati ons, neg| i gi b| e but
subsi stent. Our word ' i rrati ona| ' i s unmi nd|ul o| the i mport o|
the nomi nati on a|ogos to the same extent that the word ' rational '
retai ns l ittle o| the Creek |ogos. And, above a| | , thi s nomination
has ended up taking on a univoca| si gni hcati on. ut the contrast
remai ns, andonecan reactivateit~ asl do~ inbetweensi gni hcation
andthatwhi ch, i nthe wordthati mparts it,contradicts itexp|icit|y.
For thi s contrast i s the trace wi thi n |anguage o| a |oundationa|
truth-event.
It can easi | y be shown that the same app| ies |or ' rea| ' numbers,
or |or ' i magi nary' numbers. Even Cantor' s reason |or cal | ing the
ordi na| sbegi nni ngwi th' transhnite'numbers becomeslessand|ess
obscure |or usnow,connectedasiti stohismi nd|ul nesso|o||endi ng
the sanctity o| the lnhnite wi th hi s inventi on.
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLWPL W\1WP1\W 07
The |requency in number-theory o| a gap between the trace o| a
nominationandthesedimentso|si gni hcationi ndicatesthatthethi nk-
ing o|number is a true ecenta| site. it represents in mathematics a
zone o| si ngul ar precarity and sensitivity, struck regul ar| y by the
excesso|aneventthatl anguageandestabl i shedknow |edgesconsi der
destituteo|signihcation,andwhosedesti nycanonl ybesustainedby
meanso|a poetic andsupernumerary nomi nati on.
And thi s is because number i s, amongst the |orms o|bei ng, that
one whi ch opens onto our thought by way o| its organi sation see
IO. 2O . Which means thateverythi ngexcessi ve thatthoughtencoun-
ters in number, everything that interrupts the regi me o| its bei ng
by way o| an evental caesura, has i mmediate di sorgani si ng e||ects
|or thought.
I2. 6. Mydoctrineo|Number,even i |mytermi nol ogyandtheecho
lgivei tinphi l osophi cal thoughtareverydi ||erentthi ngs,i sneverthe-
lesssubstanti al l ythato|' surreal numbers' inventedby|. H. Conway
intheseventies see I . 7 .
.
I makenoclaim atalltohavingproduced
anything new o| a strictly mathematical order. Why, then, change
' surreal number' to j ust ' Number' , with a capita| N?
I t i s basica| l y a poetical di sagreement. The nomi nation proposed
by Conway seems to me rather too narrow, let's saythat it belongs
toanoneiricgenre ' surreal ' obvi ousl ysuggesting' surreal i st' , whereas
theexcessivenatureo|thedi scoveryi nmyviewdemandsthemaj estic
genre o|theepic, somethi ngcapabl eo|conveyi ngthe unanti ci pated
royal arri val o|Numberas such.
More techni cal l y, it seems to me that ' surreal ' remai ns caught
withi nthenoti on~ al l toohighl ychargedwi thmeani ngs~ o|a con-
tinuitytbrougbsuccessiceuidenings. Theadj ecti ve' surreal ' seemsto
suggest itsel |becausethesenew numbers 'contai n' the real numbers
astheycontai nthe ordina| s , asi |thenewspaceconqueredwasan
extensiono|theol d. lnhi sbook,Conshor see I . 7 , seekingtomake
propaganda|orthesurrea| s, decl aresthat'wenowknowtheexciting
|act that the surreals |orm a held contai ning both the real s and the
ordi nal s. '
,
utwhati sexciting i nthediscovery, at least|or the phi -
losopher, goes wel l beyond thi s algebraic col lecti on o| real s and
ordi nal s. It rel ates rather to a complete reinterpretati on o|the very
idea o| number, to the possi bi l ity o| hnal l y thi nki ng number as a
unihedhgure o| mul ti pl e~bei ng. That rea| sandordi na| sari sewi thi n
thi s hgure i s the least o|the matter, a si mple consequence. And al l
themore sogiventhat, a|ongwith real sandordi nal s, themi snamed
' surreal s' containani nhnitel yi nhnitethrongo|numberswhoseexi s-
tence noonehasconceivedo|be|ore, andwhi ch retroacti vel y make
08 \W\L\LT. LL1W111\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
ourhi storica| numbersseem | i keami ni scu| ededuction|roma| | those
abundant varieties o| numeri ca| being. To give j ust one examp|e.
surrea| numbers permita comp|etedoctrinenoton| yo|i nhnitesi ma|
numbers, but o|an i nhnity o|i nhnite|y sma| | numbers, descri bi nga
' downwards' numeri ca| swarmi ngj ustas vastas thatwhi chthe ordi-
na|s descri be ' upwards' .
Tous ea po| i ti ca| i mage. t henomi nati on ' surrea| ' seemst ometo
be marked by thatcauti on, by thatattachmentto o| dsi gni hcations,
thatcharacterisesa certai n 're|ormi st' reservewhencon|rontedwith
theevent. Now, l thi nk~ wager~ thatwemustadoptthe language
o|rupture here,the ' revo| uti onary' | anguage. I wi l | say there|orethat
whattakesp|ace here i s nothing |essthanthe adventto ourthought
o|Number.
Ul ti mate|ythe capi ta| i sati on o|Numberdoesnotso muchdi sti n-
gui sh the genera |rom the speci es subsumed to it whol e numbers,
rationa| numbers, rea| numbers, ordi nal numbers, i nhnitesimal
numbers,etc. ~ a| thoughi tdoes indcedactivatesucha distinction -
as itemphasisesthegapbetweenanomi nation hereat|astisNumber
and the di verse si gni hcati ons that, havi ng once been nomi nations
themse| ves, havebecomethe names o|numbers.
I2. 7. Making thus our wager on the word Number, |et us try to
|egiti mi se the dehni ti on. ' A Number is constituted by the conj oi nt
givenness o|anordi na| anda part o|thatordi na| . '
Theordi nal s are theonto|ogi ca| schema o|thenatura| mul ti pl e.
Anordi na| i sa consi stentnatura| unity,counted |or oneintheonto-
| ogi ca| si tuati on set theory . These uni ties i n the non-numerical
senseo|thepureandsi mp| econsi stencyo|themu| ti p| e, o|the'gath-
ering together' o| the mu| ti p| es that consti tute it, or belong to its
presentation provide the materia| o| Number, that on the basis o|
whichthere i sNumber,ormore preci se| ythatwi thi nwhichNumber
operates a section.

The si mp|est way to think about this i sto con-

siderthataNumberextractsa|orm|romitsnatural ordina|materi al ,
as a part, picce or |ragment o|it, a consi stent unit o|thi s materi al .
an ordina| .
I2. 8. ecause o|thei r anti quity, thei r uni versal ity, thei r si mpl icity
which i n |act masks a |ormi dab| e comp|exity i n the detai | , the
natura| who|e numbers wi | | beourgui de. We haveseen chapter I I
that, thought according to thei r being, natura| who| e numbers are
nothi ng but a parti cu| ar section in the i nhnite|y i nhnite domain o|
ordi na| s. thesectionthatretai nsonl ytheinitialpoi nto|beingo|thi s
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLWPL W\1WP1\W 0
domain thevoi d and the ' hrst' successi ons, bounded external l y by
thehrst l i mi tordi nal . Orthatthe natural whol enumbers extract
and i sol ate, in the boundless |abric o| natural mul ti pl es, onl y that
which i snite.
Why not continue in the same way? lt i s certai nl y more rati onal
uni |ormly to attach theconcept o| Number tothe ordi na| s in the
modeo|asecti on, thantodeployananarchi cal se|ecti ono|di sparate
procedures algebraic,topol ogical , set-theoreti cal . . . , see I . I J .
O| course, we must be sure thi s i s ossib|e. ' Possi bl e' meani ng
what ? That in thi sway wecan hnd our|ami | i arnumbers. lt woul d
certai nl y be arbitrary si mpl y to i mpose, in the name o|ontological
si mpl icity,aconcepto|Numberwhichwou| dnotsubsumeeitherthe
rationalnumbersorthereal numbers. uti |Number,asa secti onin
a natural multiple, dehnes whole numbers as we| l as rational or
|racti onal numbers,who| enegativenumbersaswel l asreal numbers,
inhnitesi mal s as wel l as ordi nal s, then nothi ng, i n my view, can
prevai l against both the mathemati cal unity and the phi | osophi cal
noce|ty o|such a concept.
Moreover,theproperlyontological si mp| icityo|theideao|'secti on'
conhrmsthatourwageri sgood.TosaythataNumberisconstituted
ontheonehandbyanordi nal whichi sthesignatureo|theNumber' s
belongingtothenatural |ormo|presentation , ontheotherbya part
o| that ordi nal which is the section as ' |ormati on' in the natural
materi al i sto dehneNumberbyputti ngto work onl ythe mostel e-
mentary, ' basi c' categories o|theontol ogyo|the mul ti pl e.
I2. 9. Number wi l l then appear as the medi ati on between Nature' s
i nhnite prodigal ity o| |orms o| being and that whi ch we are i n a
position to traverse and to measure. lt is that whi ch, at least in a
l i mi ted domai n o| its exi stence, accords ourthoughtthecapaci ty to
grasp andmeasure being qua natural bei ng. Somethingwhi ch every
physicsconhrms.
I2. IO. Therei snodoubtthatAristotl e' s|anguage MatterandForm
is the most eloquent one |or transcri bi ng the idea o| Number. ln
particul ar, it a||ords us the advantage o|i nstal l i ng oursel ves withi n
materi al istmetaphors. Thi sisnoneg| i gi bl eadvantagewhenweknow
that, si ncePl ato, on account o| its apparent mystery, Number has
beenatthehearto|al | i dea| i strepresentationso|Nature. Upto,and
i ncl udi ng, what it has become under the l aw o|Capital , what it is
today, as I recounted at the beginni ng o|this book. the unthought
basiso|the ideology o|thecountabl e.
| 0 \W\L\LT! LL1W1|\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
Si nce the section o| Numbera| ways operates upon an ordi na| , it
can be sai dthat,given any Numberwhatsoever, there a|waysexists
anordi na| thati sitsmatter. ' Matter' herehasaveryprecisemeaning.
On the one hand, the ordi na| is the ' basi s' o| Number, that |rom
whi ch its |orm issectioned. Thusitproceeds|rom one ordi na| , |rom
whi ch an extracti on is made, that there shou| d be a Number qua
pri nci p| eo|thi sextracti on. Ontheotherhand, weknowthata| | the
e|ements o| an ordi na| are ordi na| s see 8. 5 . I|the numerica| ity o|
Number,ubatitsecti ons, its|orm, i saparto|anordi na| , then,si nce
a|| thee| ements o|a part o|a setare obvi ous| ye| ements o|thatset,
that which secti ons a Number must a| so be entire|y comosed of
ordina|s. ' Matter'thi sti memeansrstmatter.Whenwespeako|the
constituents o| the numeri ca| secti on,we are speaki ng excl usi ve| yo|
ordi na| s. It is an ordi na| that i s sectioned, and the e|ements o|the
secti onareal soordi na| s. With regardtothecatcgorieso|itsmatter,
Numberi snatura| through and through.
I 2. I I . TheAri stote| i anmetaphori seasi | yextended.wesaythatthe
product o| the numeri ca| secti on, i n the ordi na| that indicates its
natura| provenanceand|urni shesitsmatter,i stheformo|theNumber.
Number itse|fis rather the gesture o|secti oni ng, which i s why it is
represented bythepairo|itsmatter (an ordi na| andits|orm apart
o| that ordi na| . ut in the |orm is concentrated that by vi rtue o|
which Number escaes its natura| prescripti on, or at |east migbt
escape it. ecausethe |orm,beingany part o|an ordi na| whatsoever,
bri ngs |orth, withi n a natura| uni ty, a mu| ti p| e whi ch i n general is
notnatura| .
The|orm i s, si mp| y, a set o|ordi na| s taken |rom amongthe e|e-
mentso|anordi na| . Thisdeducti ondi stinguishesaparto|thematter.
Now, al though every ordi na| is a set o|ordi na| s i n |act, the set o|
ordi na| s whi ch precedes it, I I . 2 , notecerysetofordina|s isneces-
sari|y an ordina|. An ordi na| has no ho| es, a|| ordi na| s that precede
it be|ongto it, |rom the voi d 0 right up to itse| |. Thi s is, moreover,
why anordi na| isthe nameo|itsown ' |ength' . I|, ontheotherhand,
youtakeanysetwhatsoevero|ordi nal s, thereisa goodchancethat
agreatmanyordina|swi||bemi ssing,thatthesetwi||be|u| l o|hol es.
It wi | | there|ore not itse| |be an ordina| . Consequent| y, the |orm o|
a Number i s usua| | y not an ordi na| , on| y its matter is. As might be
expectedin a materi a| istphi | osophy, iti smatterthati shomogenous,
non-| acunary, regu| ar, and|ormthatishol ey,i rregul ar, non-natura| .
Wi th the |orm o| a Number we genera| l y transgress the | i mits o|
natura| being, even i | its materi a| is a|ways extracted |rom within
those | i mits.
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLWPL W\1WP1\W | | |
I2. I2. I|the|orm isa part extracted |rom anordi nal bythesection
which i s Number ~ a usual l y non-natura| subset o| a natural
set~ then it leaves a remai nder,there is something l i ke the | e|tover
cuttings |rom the scu| pting o|the |orm in the ordi nal~matter. This
remainderismadeupo|thoseelementso|thei niti al ordi nal thatare
not elements o| the |orm o| the Number, the portion o| the matter
that is not taken up in the |orm. We cal l this the residue o| the
Number.
|ust l ikethe |orm,the residueo|a Numberis a mu|ti pl emadeo|
ordi nal s. And, againj ustl i kethe|orm, iti susual l ynotanordi nal it
wou|d be somewhat paradoxi cal i| the resi due was natural , it is so,
nevertheless,i nthespecihccasewherethe |ormcutsa||ordi nal sout
o|the ordina|~matter without excepti on, starti ng |rom ordi nal W .
The residue isobtainedbythesi mple difference betweentheMatter
andthe |orm.
lt might be obj ected that, in that case, |orm and residue are
interchangeabl e. And, i n a certai n sense, that i s the case. Contem-
porary art has bl i ndl y thought thi s ambiguity i n the composi ti on
o| Number, by exhi biting as new works the residue o| works o|
art whose |orm i s outdated. What wi l l ultimate|y di scri mi nate
between the resi due and the |orm o|a given Number, though, wi | l
relate to the | aw o| order over Numbers, a l aw we shal l study i n
chapter I 3 .
Note once more that taki ng the |orm and residue together ~ the
union o|the |orm andthe resi due~ restoresthe matter, that i s, the
ordi nal webeganwith. Theset-theoretica| tripleto|matter,|ormand
residue i sal | thereistothe numerical secti on.
I2. I J. Armedwi ththeseremarks,wecanout| i neourprogramme o|
investigation i ntotheconcepto|Number.

Studywhatit is thatmakesthe di ||erence betweentwoNumbers,

andunderstandthe l awo|orderthatseri al isesthemandwi thout
which we woul d not, hnite subj ects that we are, have any hope
o| progressing in ourknow|edge o| them.

Reconstitutealgebra,theoperati onal di mensi ono|Number addi -

tion, mu| ti pl icati on, etc. , wi thout whi ch, constrained above a| l
asweare bytheideologyo|thecountabl e, noonewoul dbel i eve
that Numberi sa number. We wi l l alwaysho| d hrm to the poi nt
thatthe bei ng o| Number precedes operati ons, that Number i s
above a| | a thi nking, on the basi s o| Nature, o| a section that
extracts a |orm |rom a natura| unity thi nkab|e as the matter o|
Number.
Z \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb

Fi ndagai n, in thei nhnite|yi nhniteswarmi ng o| Numbers, inthe

i ncredi b| e prodiga| ity o|being in numerica| |orm, our historica|
numbers . natura| who|e numbers, re|ative whole numbers | nega-
tivenumbers , rati ona| s |racti ona| numbers , rea| s, ordi na| s . . .

Showthatthcre exi sti nhnite|ymoreNumbersthanwecanknow

orcan hand| e, that our hi storical numericality i s most i mpover-
i shedcompared to theexcess o|being in Numbers.

Make sure, in thi s way, both that Number opens an authentic

space|orthoughtandthatthisthoughtexp| ai nsintermso|e||ec-
tive operationson| ya mi nute part o|al | the typeso|Numberso|
whi ch mu|ti p| e~being ~ as coup|ed to thought by set-theoretical
ontology~ i scaab|e.
I2. I4. This programme accomp| i shed,wewi | | tastethe bitterjoy o|
Number, i n both its thi nkab|e and its unthi nkab|e aspects. Number
wi l l be entrusted to being, and we wi l l be abl e to turn ourselves
toward the number|esse||ects o|theevent.
00tOn& MOt09 On b0t9 O Lr0 n&9
P1 . Theconcepto|Numbermakescentra| useo|theconcepto|' part
o| an ordina| ' , that is to say, o| the concept o| an arbitary set o|
ordi nal sextracted|romagi venordi na| . Someremarksmustbemade
concerningthecorrecttreatmento|thenotion'seto|ordi nal s' , whIch
incorporates that o|a ' part o|an ordi na| ' , si nce a|| the el ements o|
an ordina| are ordi na| s.
M2. Foraseto|ordi na| stobeanordi na| iti snecessaryandsu|hcient,
aswehavenoted,thatitshou| dhavenoho|es,thatnoordi nal shou| d
di srupt thechai n o|be| ongi ngthat bi nds the ordi nal stoeach other
upto the ordi nal underconsi derati on.
PJ. Si nce belonging i s a total order over theordi nal s, ecerysetof
ordina|s is tota||yorderedby be|onging. Andthi si sthe case whether
ornotithasho| es. l|X i sa seto|ordi na| sand7j and7_ aree|ements
o| this set, then i t i s a|ways the case either that Xj 7_q or7_ 7 q
or 7 j 7_. Thus the |orm andthe residue o| a Number are total | y
orderedbybe| ongi ng,j ustasitsmatteri s. Whatmakesthe|ormand
the resi due unnatura| are the ho|es i n them, not their order. The
uni versa| intrication o|natural presentation prescri bes its lawto all
the components o| a Number. ut what subtracts most Numbers
L\WLL \ W\L. PW LVLWPL W\1WP1\W J
|rom the strictly natural domai n o| bei ng resides i n the l acks that
a||ect their |orm and there|ore thei r resi due . A Number i s non-
natural i nso|ar as its natura| |abric i sper|orated.
N4. Every seto|ordina| s has a mi ni ma| e|ement. Thi s resu|ts once
more |rom that i mportant | aw o| natura| mu| ti p|es, the pri nci p| e o|
mi ni mal ity see 8. IO . Take X, a dehned seto|ordi na| s, and P, the
property ' belonging to X' . l|thereexi sts any ordi na| that possesses
theproperty iti ssu|hcient|orthi sthatX shou|dnotbeempty , then
there exists a sma| l est ordi na| that possesses it. |t i s this sma| |est
ordi nal thatistheminima|elemento|X. itbelongstoalltheordi na| s
o|X, butnoordi na| o|X be|ongs to i t.
Theexi stenceo|ami ni ma| el ementhasnothi ngtodowi thwhether
ornotthesethas anyho| es. There|ore onecan a| ways speak o|the
mi ni ma| e|emento|the|ormo|a Number,oro|themi ni ma| e|ement
o|its resi due. Astothemi ni ma| e|emento|itsmatter,thi si sa|ways
theemptyset0, si nce thematter is anordina| .
N5. We must be very care|u| on the other handto observe thata
gicen set ofordina|s does not a|uays bace a maxima| e|ement. We
havea| readyseenthata l i mit ordi nal which is a set o|ordi na| s has
nomaxi ma| e|ement 9. I 4 . A |ortiorianysetwhatsoevero|ordi na| s
mayverywel | bei nhnite|y ' open' , contai ni ngnoe| ementthatdomi -
nates a| l theothers.
N6. However, there a| ways exi sts an uer bound o| a set X o|
ordi nal s. y' upperbound' we understandthesmal |estordi na| to be
| argerthanevery ordina| inX. Hereagai n, theexistenceo|anupper
bound is guaranteed by the pri nci p| e o| mi ni mal ity. Let P be the
property ' being | arger than a| | theordi na| sthat be|ongto X' . There
certai nl y exists an ordi na| that possesses thi s property, un|ess X is
equiva|enttotheseto|a||theordi na| s, which i si nconsi stent.There-
|orethereexistsa sma| |estordi nal whi chpossessestheproperty P,it
is the sma| |est ordi na| to be | arger than a| | the e|ements o| X, and
thusi tistheupperboundo|X. We wi | | denotethi supperboundby
sup X .
N7. l|a proper part o|an ordi na| a part whi ch is nottheordi na|
itse| |, a trulypartia|part is anordi na| , thenitbe|ongs tothe i ni ti a|
ordina| .
We haveknown|ora |ongtimethattheconversepri nci p|ei spart
o|thedehni ti ono|ordi na| s. Theyaretransitive,andsoeveryordi na|
thatbe|ongstoanordi na| isa| soa part o|it.Wenowwanttoshow
4 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
thateveryordina|which is a properpart o| an ordi nal belongs to it.
Thi scomesbacktosayi ngthat,betweenordi na| s, theordero|belong-
ingisequica|entto tbeorderofinc|usion.
Suppose an ordi nal W, is a part o| ordi na| W,. W, c W,. Si nce
be| ongi ngis a total order over the ordi na| s, and si nce W, isdi ||erent
|romW, it is a roer part o|W, , there aretwo possi bi | i ties.
I Either W, W,, and the theorem is true, the ordi na| W, which
i s i nc| uded i nW, belongs to it, the part i sal so an element.
2 Or W, W, . ut, since W, is transitive, that woul d mean that
W, cW, . Nowwe knowthatW, c W,. I|onesetis i ncl udedin
another, and the other i ncl uded i n it, then they are equal , as is
i ntuitive|yobvi ous, andasthereadercanproveinoneline. Now,
W, cannot be equaltoW,, sinceiti sa properparto|it. Thusthe
hrst case must ho| d, andthe theorem i s proved.
Soitisthesamethi ng,when dea| i ngwithordi nal s, tosaythatone
be|ongs to the other, andto saythat onei si nc| uded in theother. In
otherwords, i |anordi na| represents asa part anotherordina| , then
it also presentsit as anelement . Which doesnotpreventanordi nal
|rom havi ng some parts ubicb are not e|ements. These parts wi l l
si mp| y not be ordi na| s ei ther. This wou| d be the case, |or example,
withholey,| acunarysets,setswhich begi ni nthemiddleo|anordi nal
chai n or on| y present separated e|ements, etc. ln |act it i s genera| l y
thecasewi ththe |orm o|a Number.
I|, however, the |orm o|a Number i s an ordi nal , then it |ol lows
|romthe preceding argumentsthatnot only i sita part o|thematter
the i ni ti al ordi nal , but al so anelement o|it. Thenthe |orm is o|a
pecu| i arki nd, | i kea ' corpusc| e' o| matter. In suchcases, Number is
less a representati on extracted |rom Nature than a si mpl e natural
presentati on.
| J
LRCtCHCC 3HU LtUCt
O lumOCtS
I J. I . A Number is enti re| y determined by its matter the ordi nal
|romwhi chi ts|ormisextracted andi ts|orm.Theresi duei sobtai ned
by taking the di ||erence between the matter and the |orm. ecause
o|this, iti so|ten convenient, aswehave said, towri te a Numberi n
the|ormN W, F N , where W istheordi na|~matterand F N the
|orm. The resi dueR N , i sequal to V ~ F N .
Ci ven theseconditions,howcanwethi nk thedifference between
two Numbers ? lt is natura| to posi t that they are identical i |they
have the same matter and the same |orm. | |they are not identi ca| ,
thi scou| dbe.

becausetheydonothavethesame matter. TakeW, theordi na|-

matter o|one,andW, the ordi nal~matter o| the other. Two ordi na| s
| i ke W, andW, are ordered by be|onging, but a| so, aswe haveseen
N7, by i nc| usi on. ei therW, c V,, or W, c V, . Thus we can say
thatinthiscase whatdi ||erenti ates V, |romW, i sthe set W, ~ V, ,
orW, ~ W_ . Sinceal l elementso|an ordi na| are ordina| s, wecanal so
saythatwhatdi ||erenti ates W, |rom W, ~ and thusthenumbers N,
and N,, o| which these ordi nal s are the matters ~ are the ordi na|s
which are e|ements o|W, but not o| V, i |V, c V, or elements o|
W, butnoto|W, i |W,c Wj,

because, havingthe samematter, they do not have the same |orm.

In thi scase,therearee|ements andthere|ore ordina| s, sincethehrst
mattero|aNumberi scomposedo|ordina|s i nitsthreecomponents,
\W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
matter, |orm andresi due that are in the |orm o|one but not in the
|ormo|the other. ut,si ncethe matter is the same, everye|emento|
the |orm o|one whi ch is not in the |ormo|the otheris in its residue.
i |W e F N andW E F N, , then W e R N, . What di ||erentiates
thetwoNumbersN, andN,istheseto|ordi nal sthatarei nthe|orm
o|one and in the residue o| the other.
We can see then that the di ||erence between two Numbers can be
understoodintermso|ordi na| s. I|an ordi nal is inthe mattero|one
and not i n that o| the other, or i | it i s i n the |orm o| one and in
the resi due o| the other, it makes a difference between the two
Numbers.
I J. 2. TakeanytwoNumberswhatsoever. Wewi | l saythatanordi nal
u discriminates betueenthesetwo Numbers i |it i s i nthe matter o|
oneandnoti nthato|theother, ori |it is i nthe|orm o|oneandi n
theresi dueo|theother whi chi mpl i esthatiti sinthemattero|both,
si nce |orm and residue are both parts o| matter .
I J. J. Let' s take an exampl e. Let N be the Number 2, 0 whose
ordi nal~matter is 2 and whose |orm i s 0 . |t iscertai n| ya Number,
si nce2 isanordi na| it isthehniteordi nal whosebeingi s 0, 0 , see
I I . 5 and the si ng|eton o|0, denoted by 0 , i sa part o|that ordi nal
7. I I . Thi sNumberN, has, |ormatter,theordi na| 2, and,|or|orm,
the part 0 .
Now |et N, be the Number , 2 . Once again i t i s a Number,
si nce i s an ordi na| the hrst | i mi t ordina| and the ordi na| 2,
whi chi sane|emento|,isal soa part o|it transi ti vityo|ordinal s .
Thi s Number N, has |or i ts matter and |or i ts |orm the part
0, 0 2.
Theordi nal doesnot discriminatebetueent heNumbersN, and
N,. lndeed, i scertai nl ynotinthemattero|N, which i s2, a hnite
successorordi na| , but nei ther is it in the matter o|N,, becausethi s
matter i s , and we knowthat no set be| ongsto itse| |. itcannotbe
that e .
The ordi na| 0 the empty set does not discriminate betueen the
Numbers N, and N, eitber. ln |act, it i s in the |orm o| both. The
|orm o|N, i sthe si ng|eton 0 , o|whi ch 0 isthe on|y e|ement. So0
is an element o| thi s |orm. And, on the other hand, 0 i san element
o|theordi na| 2, which i sthe |orm o|N. Thus0 i sa|so i nthe|orm
o|N, .
However, the ordi na| 0 whi ch is the whol e number I } does
discriminate betueen the Numbers N, and N. 0 is an element o|
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb 7
the ordi nal 2, and thus belongs to the |orm o| N,. ut it cannot
belongtothe|ormo|N whi chispreci sel y 0 , si ncethese| |-belong-
i ng0 0 isi mpossi bl e. Civenthat 0 isanelemento|thematter
o|N, which is the ordi na| 2 , since it i s not in its |orm, it must be
in its residue.
IJ. 4. Ci ven two Numbers andany ordina| whatsoever, it is a| ways
possi b|e to say whether thi s ordi na| di scri mi nates between the two
Numbers ornot. | |N, andN, are Numbers, the property ' di scri mi -
nati ngbetween N andN,' iswe| | -dehned.
ut i| there is an ordi nal that di scri mi nates between N and N
that i s, i |N, andNaredi ||erent , then i nvi rtueo|thepri nci pl eo|
mi ni mal ity ~ whi ch we have constantl y made use o| because i t i s a
|undamental |awo|natura| mu| ti p| es see8. IO ~ there is oneuni que
sma| lest ordi nal whi ch di scri mi nates between them. Or, i |you | i ke,
a mi ni ma| ordi na| |or the property ' di scri mi nating between the
Numbers N, andN,' .
IJ. 5. An extreme|y imortant denition. Jhc smaIIcst ordnaI to
dscrmnatc bctwccn two ^umbcrs s caIIcd thcr discminant.
The interestingthi ngaboutthe concept o|di scri mi nant is the |o| -
l owi ng. it bri ngs the i dea o| the di ||erence between two Numbers
down to a matter o| one sing|e ordina|. Thi s ' mi ni ma| point' o|
di ||erentiation al |ows a |oca| rather than g| oba| treatment o| the
comparison between twoNumbers. The exi stence o|a di scri mi nant
su|hces |or usto conc| ude thattwoNumbers are di ||erent.
I J. 6. One moreexampl e. Take the two Numbers N and N, |rom
theexampleabove I J. J , N, 2, 0 and N, ,2 . What i sthei r
discriminant ?

We haveseen that0 does notdiscri mi nate between N, and N,.

We havea| soseenthat 0 di scri mi nates betweenthem. Sincethe

on| y ordi na| sma||er than 0 i s 0, whi ch does not di scri mi nate
between N, and N,, 0 i s dehnite|y the sma| lest ordi na| that
discri mi nates between them. Wethere|ore saythat 0 i sthe di s-
cri mi nanto|theNumbers 2, 0 and ,2 .
Note the l ocation o| the di scri mi nant. i t i s i n the matter o| the
twoNumbers N, andN,, butisi nthe|ormo|N,andi ntheresidue
o| N, .
Now consi der the |ol lowing two Numbers S W denotes the
successoro|the ordi na| W, see 9. 5 .
| 8 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb

N, , S, , . lts matter is theordi nal S, , its |ormitsel|. The

l atter i s a part o| S, , si nce every ordi na| i s an element o|
its successor, and every element o| an ordi nal i s a part o| it
transi ti vi ty .

N, , S, S, , . lts matter is the successoro| the successoro|,

its |orm is .
What i s the di scri mi nant o| N, and N, ? These two Numbers have
thesame |orm, that is , but extracted |rom di ||erent matters, S,
and S, S( . ln summary, in these numberseverythi ng is exactlythe
sameuto tbeordina|8() . Thi sordi nal i si nthemattero|N,,si nce
S( S, S, , but it is not i n the matter o|N
,
, si nce S, E S, .
Thus the ordi nal S, is the smal lest ordi nal to make a di ||erence
between N
,
and N,, it i s the di scri mi nanto|these twoNumbers.
Note once agai n the |ocation o|the di scri mi nant o| N, and N
,
.
S, is not in the matter o| N,, but is in that o| N,. Meanwhi le,
this time it is not in tbe jorm ofN,, which i s . It i s there|ore i n
its resi due.
The combi nati on between the ordi nal punctual ity o| the
di scri mi nant and its location in the Numbers compared wi l l give
us the key to the concept o| order in the boundless domain o|
Numbers.
I J. 7. Let' sgive al | o| thi sa sl ightl ystricter |orm.
The |ocation ofan ordina| u uitb regard to Number N, written
L u,N , is the posi ti on that it occupies with regard to the th:ee
di mensi ons o|the numerical section carried out by the Number N.
matter, |orm, resi due. There are obvi ousl ythree l ocati ons.
I Ei thertheordi nal u is not an element o| theordi nal W which is
themattero|theNumberN. lnthi scasewe saythatitislocated
' outsi dethe matter' and we posi tthat. L u, N oM N .
2 Or the ordi nal u is in the matter W and belongs to the |orm o|
the Number. We then posi t L u,N F N .
3 Or the ordi nal u is in the matter W, but belongs to the resi due
o| the Number. Wethen posi t L u, N R N .
When there is no ambiguity ast othe number N in question, we
mi ghtsi mpl y use the notation L u R, si gni |yi ngthat the location
o| u |or the number i n questi on, o|course i s its belonging to the
resi due o| that number .
Civen a numberN, everyordi nal can bel ocated |or N so longas
weal l owt helocation ' outsi det hematter' .
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb
When an ordi nal di scri mi nates between two numbers N, and N,
see I J. 2 , it is very si mpl y because its location in the two Numbers
isnotthesame.Thetableo|possi bl elocations|oranordi nal H ubicb
discriminates betueen tbe tuo Numbers i s as |o| l ows usi ng oM, F
and R to denote the |ocations .
I u,M } I u, M}
I R
I oM
R I
R oM
oM I
oM R
The discri mi nant o| N, andN,, beingthe smal lestordi nal to di s-
criminatebetweenthem,necessari l yrespondstooneo|the' pai rs' o|
|ocati onsi ndicated i nthetabl e. Forexampl e, i |itisi ntheresi dueo|
N, , itmustbei nthe|orm o|N_ oroutsidethe matter o|N,, etc.
IJ. 8. Uchnton ol ordcr ovcr Numbcrs
Take two Numbers N, and N, and thei r discri mi nant u i |neces-
sary, reread I 3. 4~I 3. 6, given that the concept o| di scri mi nant is
central .
WesaythatN, issmal l ert hanN,, written N, < N_ , i |t hel ocati on
o|thediscri mi nantu|ortheNumbers N, andN, satishesoneo|the
three |o|l owi ngcases.
I Either L u,N R N, and L u,N, F N, . tbe discriminant
isintberesidue ofN, andintbeform ofN.
2 Or L u,N, oM N, , and L u,N, F N, . tbe discriminantis
outside tbe matterofN, andin tbeform ofN .
3 Or L u,N[ R N, and L u,N, oM N, . tbe discriminantis
in tbe residue ofN, andoutside tbe matterofN .
Compare these three cases care|ul l y with what the tabl e in I J. 7
indicates as t o the possi b| e |ocations o| the di scri mi nant o| two
Numbers.
I J. 9. It is not i mmediately evident thatthe rel ati on N, < N, i s one
o|order. ut, even be|ore establ i shing that this i s the case, we can
reveal thecharacteristics o|thi s re| ati on.
Z0 \W\L\LT. L c1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
The di scri mi nant gathers into one poi nt one ordina| the concept
o| di ||erence between two Numbers. The order introduced here
depends on the |ocation o| thi s poi nt, and there|ore on a sort o|
too|ogy ofdifference. Since,i nthegestureo|secti oni ngthatconsti-
tutesevery NumberN, the ' posi ti ve' numericality~ that whi ch thi s
gesture extracts |rom matter~ is the |orm, we wi | | always consider
that, ifthe di scri mi nanto|two Numbers i s i n the|orm o|one, this
numberi s' | arger' thantheother. Intheother,o|course,thediscri mi -
nantwi | | ei therbe i nthe resi dueoroutsidethe matter.
Conversel y, theresi dueo|a Numberisthepure|ypassiveresu| to|
the secti on o| its |orm, the unintenti ona| remai nder o|the numeric
gesture. |t i s that which Number as gesture |eaces to matter. | |the
di scri mi nant o| two Numbers is i n the resi due o|one o| them, we
wi | l a| ways consider this Number to be ' smal ler' than the other.
In the other, the di scri mi nant wi | | be i n the |orm, or outside the
matter.
I J. IO. An apparent|y paradoxi ca| consequence o|thi s conception,
whi ch determi nes a|| order on the basi s o| the active superiority
o| |orm ~ thought as the numeri ca| ity o|Number~ over residue~
thoughtas passi vei nverse~ is thata numberN, is sai dtobesmal | er
than N, i |thei r di scri mi nant is i n theresi dueo|Nj andoutside tbe
matter of N . The ' paradox' resu|ts |rom the assumption that the
posi ti on ' outside matter' i s comp|ete|y una||ected by the numerical
gesture,beingneitherin its|ormnori nitsresi due. Isn't itevenmore
passi ve then, even less i nvo| ved in the numerica| extraction o| the
|orm, than anordi na| which isi ntheresidue,and which there|oreat
|east hgures in the matter o| the Number? Isn't the | ocation oM a
hgure o| notbing in re| ation to Number, an ontological l y ' i n|erior'
hgure to thepassive hgure o|the resi due ?
I 3. I I . Thi s sense o| ' paradox' mi sses an essenti a| point, whi ch i s
thattbe 'outside matter'osition inc|udes tbematteritse|f, si nce an
ordina| W i s not an e|emento|itse| |. There i snoreasonto suppose
that the matter i s ' i ndi ||erent' to the gesture o| Number. it is its
pri mary ' gi ven' , that on the basi s o| which there i s Number, the
natura| mu| ti pl e whose being is exposed to the numerica| secti on.
And it isa|uays the matter itse| |o|one o|thetwo Numbersthatis
at stakewhen the di scri mi nanti s|ocated ' oM' |oroneo|them.
| |the di scri mi nanto|N, andN, i s, say, outsidethe mattero|N_,
then iti si nthemattero|N, i n its|orm, orinitsresidue . | |not~ i |
itwere outside the matter o|both Numbers~ itcou| dnotdiscrimi-
nate between thcm. There|ore the di scri mi nant must indeed be the
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb Z
smal lest ordi nal in the matter o| N, and outside the matter o| N.
Evidently thi s means tbat tbe ordina| w, ubicb is tbe matter ofN,
is |argertban tbeordina| w, ubicb is tbematterofN, . l|not, there
could be no ordi nal in W, thatwas not in W,, si ncetheelements o|
anordi nal are al l theordi nal sthatprecede i t see I . 2 . Thi smeans
thatW_ W, theorder-rel ati onovertheordi nals i sbelonging . ut
W,itsel |i sthesmal lestordinal thatdoesnotbelongtoW,, si nce al l
theordi nal ssma| lerthanW,are, preci sel y, theelements o|W, . And
so, ultimately, W, i s i n W, and i s the smal lest ordi nal not to be i n
W,. Iti sthesmal lestordi nal to be inW, themattero|N, , andnot
i nW, themattero|N , andthere|oreoutsi dethemattero|N . w,,
tbe matter ofN,, is tbediscriminantofN, and N,.
Thi s demonstration has a general val i dity. whenever we say that
N i s ' sma| ler' thanN_,orthatN, < N_, becausethedi scri mi nanto|
N, andN_ is intheresi dueo|N andoutsidethe mattero|N_, tbis
a|so means tbattbe discriminantinquestionis tbe ordina|-matterof
N,. Andthis relation is legitimate because the matter o| a Number,
theone-ordi nal inwhichthe numerical sectionoperates,i sa pri mor-
dial donation o|bei ngonto|ogical l ysuperi or to the passi vity o|the
residue.
|t is there|ore phi losophi cal l y wel l -|ounded to put the locations
in the order R < oM < F. the |orm, a|hrmative numerical i ty o|the
secti on, i ssuperi ortowhati soutsi dematter,which i si tsel |superior
to the passivity o| the residue because i n real ity thi s ' outside o|
matter' isthematter itsel |, i ntegral l ycounted |or oneas an ordi nal .
TherelationN, < N_|oundedonourthreecases thedi scri mi nant
in R N, and F N , the discriminant in R Nj and oM N, , the di s-
cri mi nantinoM Njandi nF N, descri bes a hi erarchy, |ounded i n
the beingo|Number asthe sectioni ng o|a |orm in natura| matter.
IJ. I2. Whatremai nsnowistoestabl i shthattherelation N < N,i s
trul yanorder-re|ati on,inthemathemati cal senseo|theterm. thatit
seria|ises Numbers. Thi s amounts to respondi ng positive|y to three
questi ons.
I Is the relation tota| ' Or. given any two di ||erent Numbers N
and N,,i s i t alwaysthecasethatN, < N, or N < N
2 Is the relation non-reexice Or. is it i mpossi b| ethatN, < N, ?
3 Is the relation transitice Or. |rom the rel ati ons N, < N and
N,5 N,doesitnecessari l y |ol l owthat N < N

|| we prove these three poi nts, we wi l l have brought the

phi l osophi cal legitimacy establ i shed i n I J. I I to coi nci de with
ZZ \W1\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
mathemati cal ontological legi ti macy. Or, rather, with regard tothe
order o| Numbers, we wi l l have obtained the si tuation in which we
have been conti nuousl ystrivingto remai n. where what is sai dunder
the sign o| the phi losophi ca| statement ' mathematics i s ontology'
remai nsinharmonywithwhati ssaidunderthesigno|mathematica|
i n|erencesthemse| ves. Orwheretheinterpretationo|mathematicsas
science o|being qua being draws its contact with the real |romthe
e||ectivethoughts o|such a science.
J. 3. Jhc rcIaton < s tota/
Look one l ast time at the tab| e o| cases o| i nequal ity |or N[ < N.
Thi stabl ehxesthe l ocation o|the discri mi nanto|N, andN, .
Casc I
Casc 2
Casc J
R
oM
R
I
I
oM
To demonstrate that the relation is total is to showthat, given two
di ||erentNumbers, one o| them i s al ways ' sma| ler' than the other.
Take two random|y se|ected numbers N, and N,, and N the
ordinal which i s their di scri mi nant. Three cases are possi b| e.
I The di scri mi nant N is in the resi due o| N
,
. Then.
a ei theri t i s i nthe |orm o|N,, and see thetabl e N
,
< N,,
b ori t i soutsidethe matter o|N,, and idem N, < N
,.
2 Thedi scri mi nant N is in the |orm o| N, . Then.
a either i ti s i nthe residue o|N,, and idem N, < N
,
,
b ori t i s outsidethe mattero|N,, and idem N, < N
,
.
3 Thedi scri mi nant is outsidethe matter o| N
,
. Then.
a either i ti s i nthe |orm o|N,, and idem N
,
< N,,
b ori t i s i nthe residueo|N,, and idem N, < N, .
Havi ngexhausti vel yenumeratedal l thepossi bl ecases,weseethat
the relation < between Numbers N, and N, is al ways dehned. The
rel ati on real l y is total i n the domai n o|Numbers, there are notwo
di ||erentNumbers notre|ated by<.
3. 4. |tisgoodtogetintothehabito|thi nkingthroughtheinequal-
ities between Numbers more rapidly. For examp| e we coul d say. i|
the di scri mi nant N i s in the resi due o|one o|the two Numbers,the
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb ZJ
tablecases I and3, whi chare the onl ypossi bi l ities showsthatthi s
Numberi s smal l er than theother. | |N is i n the |orm o|one o|the
twoNumbers,thetabl e cases I and2, theonl ypossi bi l ities shows
thatthi snumberi sl argerthantheother. Apparentlywehavel e|t to
onesi dethecasewhereN i soutsi dethemattero|oneo|theNumbers.
Not so, because then it woul d necessari | y be in the residue or the
|orm o|the other i | itwasoutsidethe matter o|both, it would not
discriminate betweenthem , and we are re|erred back to one o|the
precedingcases.
Tocomparetwo numbersaccordingtotherelation< wethere|ore
proceed as |ol lows. hrstly we check whether the di scri mi nant i s in
the |orm o| one o| them. i| so, we concl ude i mmedi atel y that thi s
Number is the l argest. | |not, we checkwhetherit i s in the resi due
o|one o| the two. i| so, weconcl udethatthatNumber is thesmal l -
est. Theworkis done, no othercasei s possi bl e.
I J. I 5. Jhc rcIaton < s ieexioe
This point is tri vi al . It cannot be that N[ < N, , si nce the relation i s
|oundedontheexistenceandl ocati ono|adiscri mi nant,whi chcannot
exi st' between' N, and i tsel |.
I J. I 6. Toexerci seourselvesinthecompari sono|Numbersusi ngthe
< relation,let' stake uptheexamples |rom I J. 6once more. Wehad,
adopting the notation by the pai r o| matter and |orm, the |our
|o| l owingNumbers.
N, 2, 0
N, , 2
N, S ,
N
-
S S ,
The di scri mi nant o| N, and N, i s 0 . |t i s in the resi due o| N
andi nthe |orm o|N,. S oN, < N, .
The discriminant o| N, andN
-
is S . It is outsidethe mattero|
N,,and intheresi due o|N
-
. So N
-
< N,.
Thedi scri mi nanto|N,andN, is 0 , whi chi sintheresidueo|N,
andi nthe |ormo| N,. S oN, < N, .
Thediscri mi nanto|N
-
andN, is 2 why? . lt i s i ntheresi dueo|
N, and i nthe|orm o|N
-
. So N, < N
-
.
The reader can study the remai ni ng compari sons on thei r own
account.
It will be remarked that it i s not simp|y because the mu//cr o|a
Number is ' larger' that that Number is l arger. Thus N
-
has |or
Z4 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
ordi na|~matter the successor o| the successor o| , which is l arger
than the successoro|, the matter o|N
,
. Neverthe|ess, N, < N, .
What is sti l | more remarkab| e i nt hi s exampl e isthatthe |orm o|
N
,
ando|N, i sthesame it i s . Thuswehavet he|o| |owing' | aw' .
iftbeform stays tbesameubi|sttbemattergrous, tbeNumbergets
sma||er. lt is quite straight|orward to demonstrate the general
case. Take a Number N, WX and a Number N, W,, X , where
W, W,, and X the same set o| ordi na| s which is a common part
o| W, and W, . The di scri mi nant o| these two Numbers cannot be
|ound in the |orm o| ei ther o| them, si ncethey havethesame |orm,
X. ane|emento|X cannot di scri mi nate betweenthem iteven hasa
location|orN, andN,,namel ythe|orm . |t isthere|oreintheresi due
o| one, and outside the matter o| the other. It is cl ear that thi s
di scri mi nanti snoneotherthanW, , whichi sthesma| lestordi nal not
to be|ong to W, , and which is in W,, since W, W_ . Now W, is
necessari l yi ntheresi dueo|N, sinceitbelongstoitsmatter,butnot
to X, its |orm , andoutsidethe matter o|N, . There|ore it is indeed
the case thatN,< N, .
Thi s process suggests a compari son between the Number W, X
andthe rel ati on .We knowthat such a relation diminisbes when
its denomi nator W grows. ut be warned. this i s only a di stant
analogy, because means nothi nghere.
Al l the same we can show, i nspi red by thi s anal ogy, that, iftbe
matterremains tbesame ubi|sttbeformgets|arger- sotbattbeo|d
formX is inc|udedin tbe neuformX~ tben tbeNumbergets|arger.
Thi s ti me, it is the en| argement o| the ' numerator' that en| argesthe
' rel ati on' . I|eavethedetai | so|thedemonstrationo|thistothereader.
Su|hce to saythatthe discriminant i sthe smal lest ordi nal to belong
to X' and not to X, so it i s i n the |orm o|the second Number and
i n the residue o|the hrst, andthere|ore the second i s l arger.
These observations are phi l osophi cal l y wel | -|ounded. What does
itmean,i n|act,toproducethesame|orm|roma l argermatter?That
thegesture o|thenumeri cal section didnotmanage toextract|rom
avastmatter thato|a | argerordi na| any moreo|a |orm thancou|d
havebeenobtainedwith a sma| |ermatter. Thegesture wasthusless
concentrated, |esse|egant,|esse||ecti ve. Iti squi te l egiti matethatthe
Number which marks this gesture shoul d be he| d |or i n|erior. The
converse a|so |ol l ows. to obtain a more widely depl oyed |orm,con-
tai ni ng al| the e|ements o|the hrst and more, with the same i ni ti al
matter,requi resa moree|hcientgestureo|secti oni ng. Itisquiteright
that this shoul d be marked by a superi orNumber.
The re| ati on< does i ndeed express i n the mathematical heldthe
onto|ogical |y rati ona| di sposi ti ons o|thecompari sono|Numbers.
L |LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb Z5
1 3. 7. Jhc rcIaton < s nansitive
This is a question o| provingthat,giventhree Numbers,NN, and
N,, i |N, < N and N < N
,
, then N, < N, . Obvi ousl y everything
hi nges on the location o| the discriminants. We shall write the
di scri mi nant o| N, and N as u I ,2 , that o|N and N, as u 2, 3 ,
andthato|N, andN, as u I , 3 .
a |i rst step. Anordi nal smal lerthan u I ,2 and u 2, 3 does not
di scri mi nate between N, andN,.
Thedi scri mi nanto|twoNumbers i stbesma||est ordi nal thatdi s-
cri mi nates between those two Numbers i n the order o| ordinal s,
whi chis belonging .
l| an ordi nal W is smal l er than u I ,2 , i t doesn' t di scri mi nate
between N, andN, . lts location |, R, oroM i sthe same i n N, and
i n N. Equal l y, i | it i s smal l er than u 2, 3 , it doesn' t di scri mi nate
between N, or N, either ~ its |ocation i s the same i n N, and N,.
Ultimately,there|ore,i tslocation mustbethesamei nN i nN, and
in N, , and itdoesnotdiscri mi nate between N, andN, .
b Conc| usi on o| the hrst step. u ! , 3 , whi ch obvi ous| y di scri -
mi nates between N
'
and N,, cannot be sma| l er than u I ,2
andu 2, 3 . l t i s there|ore at |eastequa|to tbesma||er oftbe tuo.
c Secondstep. Thesmal lesto|thetwo ordi nal su I ,2 andu 2, 3
di scri mi nates between N, andN, .
|orconvenience o|exposi ti on, wewi l l supposethatthesmal lest
is u I ,2 the reasoni ng would be exact|ythe same i |it was u 2, 3 ,
conhrmingthi swoul dbeanexcel l entexerci se |or the reader . Si nce
u I ,2 di scri mi natesbetweenN, andN, ,itsl ocationi nN, i sdi ||erent
|rom its location in N, . ut, since it is smal | er than u 2, 3 , it does
notdiscri mi nate betweenN, andN
,
, since u 2, 3 ~ di scri mi nanto|
N andN
,
~ isthesma| lestordi na| thatdi scri mi nates between these
two Numbers. There|ore the l ocation o|u I ,2 in N, and N, i s tbe
same. Si nceitslocationin Ndi ||ers|romthatinN_ i|iti sthe same
inN
,
asi nN,, i tsl ocati oni nN,al sodi ||ers |romits l ocation i nN
.
.
So u I ,2 discri mi nates between N, andN, .
d Tbird ste. u , 3 , thedi scri mi nant o| N

and N,, is actual l y

equa|totbesma||est ojtbeordina|s u(I ,2)andu(2, J).
We haveseenthatu I , 3 must beatl eastequal tothesmal lesto|
thetwo ordi na| s u I ,2 andu 2, 3 hrststep . Wesupposed u I ,2
t obethesmal lest. Thusu I ,3 i s at leastequal t ou I ,2 . Nowu !, 2
di scrimi nates between N

and N, second step . Si nce u I , 3 i s the

Z \W1\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, 1TLb
di scri mi nanto|N, andN
,
, and thusthe sma| lestordi nal todiscrimi-
natebetweenthem, andsincei tcannotbesmal|erthanu ! ,2 , which
di scri mi nates between N, and N,, it is equa|to u(l , 2) . Sou , 3
u ,2 .
e An aside. i |wewere t osuppose the opposite hypothesis, that
u 2, 3 i ssmal ler, we would hnd that u ! , 3 u 2, 3 , |or the same
reasons.
| |ourtbste,theconcl usivestep. Wehavediscoveredthatu ! ,3
u I ,2 . Thi s can be expressed a s |ol |ows. u ! ,2 , discriminant o|
N, and N, , i s al sothe discriminant o| N, and N,.
Now, we knowthat N, < N, . So we knowthere aretwo possible
locations |or the discriminant u! ,2 in N_ the sma| ler o|the two
Numbers.
I Eitheru ,2 is in the resi due o|N, . utthen,si nce it is al sothe
di scri mi nanto|N, andN
,
, itsposi ti on intheresi dueo|N, leads
us toconcl ude that N, < N
,
on this poi nt, see IJ. 4 .
2 Or u ,2 is outsidethemattero|N, . Itmustthenbein the |orm
o|N,, |or the usua| reason that N, < N, . ut u ! , 2 , which is
sma| | er than u 2, 3 , does not di scri mi nate between N, and N,.
There|oreiti sal soi nthe|ormo|N
,
. And, si nceiti sthedi scri mi -
nanto|N, andN
,
,bei ngoutsi dethemattero|N, andinthe|orm
o| N
,
, once agai nN, < N, .
So we have proved that, i |N, < N, andN_ < N
,
, then N, < N,.
Wehaveevendiscovered,asa bonus, a sti l l hnerresul t. thediscri mi-
nanto|N, andN
,
i sequal tothesmal lesto|thedi scri mi nantso|N,
andN, ando| N and N,.
J. 8. Di a|oguewi thatenaci ousreader,onthesubj ecto|thepreced-
ing demonstration.
1H| R|AU|R. You suppose |romstartto hni shthat the di scri mi nant
o| N, and N, exists. It' s notso obvi ous. I can well seethatthe dis-
cri mi nanto|N, andNexi sts, si nceweknowthatN, < N, .Thesame
|orthato|N, andN
,
. ut itcould wel l bethat i ntheend N, N, ,
andinthatcasethere wou| dbenodi scri mi nantu ! , 3 . There|ation
woul d be ci rcul ar. N, < N < N, .
V|. utthat' sabsurd. I | thedi scri mi nanto| N, andN, i s l ocated in
N , and N_ i n such a way that N, < N , it cannot be the case that
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb Z7
N, < N, . There|ore N, is necessari l y di ||erent |rom N
,
, and thei r
di scri mi nantexists.
k|AU|R. Okay, you' ve got me. ut I' m sti l l not sati shed. In your
second step, you suppose that one o| the two di scri mi nants
u( I ,2 andu( 2, 3 isthesmal l ero|thetwo. utsurel yi tcoul dquite
easi|y be thecase thatthere i s no smal lest o|the two, |or thi sto be
the case i tsu|hces that they be equa|. And, sothat you don' ttry to
pul l the wool over my eyes, I ' l l gi ve an exampl e. Take these three
numbers.
I N, is the number ( 2, ( I , which has |or its matter 2 and |or its
|ormthesi ng|etono|I . Iknow( l' vereadyousayingsoj ustnow
thattheordi nal I is anel emento|the ordi nal 2 see I . 5 , and
thatthe si ngleton o|an el ement i s a part 7. O . Here we have
the pair o| an ordi na| and o| a part o| that ordi na| , so i t' s a
Number 2. .
2 N, is the Number 0, 0 , whi ch has |or mattertheempty set, and
|or |orm theempty set. It' s sti l l a Number though ! ecause 0 is
anordi nal , whi chserves|or thematter,and0 i sa uni versal part
o|everyset( see7. 9 , i ncl uding0 itsel|, whi chi s, asI know, a set.
So0 i shneasthe |orm too.
3 N, is the Number( 2, I . Youcan' tre|use me thi s, because2 is an
ordi nal , and I , being ane|emento|theordi nal 2 ( |ol l owingyour
I I . 5, as al ways , i s al so a part o| it, since every ordi nal i s
transitive.
Now, let'ssee, whatdo I have? Thedi scri mi nanto|N, andN, is
0. i t' sintheresi due o|N si nce0 isanelemento|thematter2, but
doesnothgure i nthe |orm, the si ngleton ( I , whose onl yelement is
I. And i t' soutsi dethemattero|N,, sincethi smatteri s0, o|which
d cannot be an element. There|ore N, < N,.
The di scri mi nant o| N, and N
,
is a|so 0, which is outside the
mattero|N,, as we can see, and which i s i n the |orm o| N,, si nce
d I . Fromthi sweconcl ude
[
hatN, < N
,
.
Here is a concrete test case where N, < N,, where N, < N,, and
where, neverthel ess, u I ,2 and u 2, 3 , to use your notation |rom
the begi nni ng o| I J. I 7, are equal . There|ore nei theri s smal ler than
theother, andyourchai n o|i n|erence i s broken.
Vl. Veryshrewd! Youwi l l havetoa| l owmea| l thesamethati nthe
end,inyourexampl e, transi ti vityisconhrmed. ecausethediscri mi -
nanto|N, and N, i ssti | | 0, which is i nthe resi dueo|N, andinthe
|orm o|N
,
. So it i ssti l l thecasethatN, < N
,
.
Z8 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
RlAUlR. lmakeanobj ectiononapointo|princi p| e, andyourespond
withanempi ri cal remark! Myexampl erui nsyourgeneralargument,
which rests on the |act that one can a|uays di scern the sma| |est o|
thedi scri mi nants o|N, andN_ando|N, andN
,
. l haveshownyou
acasewherethiscannotbedone. The|actthattransitivitysti | | works
|or my examp| e might j ust be chance, si nce it now seems you have
yet toroceanythi ng.
VL. You al | ow my hrst step, a| | the same. that ul , 3 cannot be
sma| |erthan u( I ,2 and u( 2, 3 ?
RlAUlR. With the caveat that the ' and' seems somewhatsuspect to
me, si nce it might re|ate two equa| di scri mi nants. See my examp|e.
you wou| d be sayi ng that ' u I , 3 cannot be sma| |er than 0 and 0' ,
which i s| udi crous.
Vl. Un| ess it uas sma| |er than 0. . . ut anyhow ~ i |, as in your
examp| e, u( I ,2 isequa| to u 2, 3 , do you admitthatu I ,3 cannot
be sma| | erthan u I , 2 a|ias u 2, 3 ? ecausenoordinal sma| |erthan
thi scommon discriminantcan discrimi nate between N N, and N,.
RLAUlR. Obvi ous| y.
Ml. utu I ,2 di scri mi nates between N, andN,~ i ts|ocationinN
i sn' tthe sameas in N, ?
RLAUlR. No, howcou| d it be?
Vl. Andita| sodi scri mi nates goi ngbythenameo|u 2, 3 , towhich
iti sequa| betweenN, andN
,
~ its|ocation i snotthesameinthese
two?
RlAUlR. That' sexact|y what l sai d.
Ml. Let's| ookatthese|ocationsmorec|ose| y. Si nce N, < N,, u I ,2
must eitherbeintheresidue oroutsidethematter o|N, . utcanit
be outsidethe matter?
RlAUlR. a|ter some ti me thi nki ng No. ecause, i| it were outside
the matter o|Nitwou| d haveto be in the |orm o|N,, si nce N, <
N, . ut, as it is a| sothedi scri mi nant o| N, andN
,
, and N_ < N,, it
cannot be in the |orm o|N,, as exp| ai ned in I J. I 4. So it is dehnite|y
in the resi due o|N , and. . .
L1LLWLL PWL \LL \ W\Lb Z
V|. e e e outside the mattero| N,, becausenot in its |orm. utwhere
is it | ocated in N, ?
k|AUlk. a|tersometi methi nki ng Inthe|orm. ecauset hi s u I ,2 ,
whichi sa| sou 2, 3 , i s thediscri mi nanto|N,andN
,
. eingoutsi de
the matter o| N,, si nceN, < N, , it is in the |orm o| N, .
Vl. Per|ect! Here i sa u ! ,2 whichu I , 3 cannotbe| essthan, and
which i s|oundintheresidueo|N, andi nthe|orm o|N
,
. There|ore
itdiscrimi nates between N, and N, . That i sto say. . .
R|AUlR. Okay, I get it. A| ready identica| to u 2, 3 , it must a| so be
identica|to u I ,3 . And thi s i dentity means that N, < N
,
, si ncethi s
commondi scri mi nant o|N, and N,, o|N, and N
,
, and o|N, and
N, is i ntheresidue o|N, andi nthe |orm o|N, . Thatworks.
V|. It' sj ustas yourexamp| e says. 0 was the common di scri mi nant
o|thecouples N ~N, and NN, . It is a| so the di scri mi nant o|N ,
and N
,
. And it i s | ocated in the resi due o| N_ outside the matter
o|N,, andi nthe|orm o|N,. Which gives usthe sequence. N, < N,
< N
,
.
klAU|k. You mustadmi tthatyou' ve hadtoaddquitea bi tto your
ori gi na| account.
V|. It isa subsecti ono|theargument,the princip|e i sthesame. ut
in mathematics one cannot ski p over anythi ng, |or the reason that
onenecerknous whatone i sski ppi ngover.
IJ. I9. Si ncethere| ati on< i stota| , i rreHexiveandtransitive,itrea| | y
isanorder-re|ationinthemathematica| sense. Wehaveentire|yj usti-
hedoursayi ng ' N, issma||erthanN, ' whenitisconhrmed,bymeans
o|the |ocation o|the di scri mi nant o|N, and N,, that the re|ation
N < N, isva| i d.
Thus the uni verse o| Numbers ~ even i | it i s, as we sha| | see,
border|ess, saturated to an i nexpressi b| e degree, o| a density wi th
regardtowhi chthece| ebrated' conti nuum' isthi nand| acunary~ can
neverthe|ess be comprehended who| | y under the seri a| | aw o| an
order.
Theadditiona||actthat this ordercanbe designated so|e| y bythe
examination o| the |ocation o| an ordi na| the discri mi nant with
regardtothreepossib|esi tes F, RandoM i ndicatesasi mp| icitythat
is reassuringasto ourcapacity to think the uni verse o|Numbers.
J0 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
It is stri ki ng that, gi ven its combi nation o| a |ogic o|mi ni ma| ity
thedi scri mi nant, the sma| |estordi na| tomark the di ||erenceo|two
Numbers and a | ogic o| posi ti ons the three components o| the
numeri ca| section , this orderappearsto be a| | ied with |exicographi -
ca| order. | n |act, i t i s presented as such i n pure| y mathematica|
expositions.
,
Now, |exicographi ca| order,whi chorgani seswordsbyrecourseto
an a| phabet o| the phonic or scri ptura| unities that compose them,
touchesonthedistincti on, soi mportanti nLacan, betweenthesigni -
herandthe|etter.
,
lnrea| ity,Numberi si ndeed| i keasigniher,whose
interna| ' posi ti ons' arethethree|ocations~ matter,|ormand resi due
~ andwhose| ettersaretheordi na| s. Thi sa| onepermitsustoorganise
somethi ng as anarchi c as sets o| any ordi na| s whatsoever, ordina|
' words ' .
I|Number i st hemedi um i n which Nature, grasped in its being,
opens itse|| to our thought, this i s, without doubt~ asthe order o|
Numbers testi hes ~ because, in the secti on it carri es out, we hnd,
underthesi mp|e |ormo|oneandthree,thatdi a|ectico|theposition
ando|the|etterwhi chhasbeenrecogni sed,si nce Ca| i |eo,as the true
terrai n o| materi a| i sm. Nature consents to its pro|usi on within the
hction o| a wri ti ng system, and we must recognise i n Number the
most inscribed i nstance o|bei ng.
two hngcrs
snap in thc abyss, i n
scri bbl cbooks
a worl d rushcs up, thi s dcpcnds
on you.
+
| 4
DC LOHCCt O buO- lumOCt
4. . The concept o| substructure, and even i n category theory'
that o| the sub-obj ect, is |undamental |or a| l areas o| contemporary
mathematics.Weknowtheextremei mportanceo|thedetermi nati on
o| subgroups o| a group, subspaces o| a topol ogi cal space, etc. A
good many o| the most pro|ound mathemati ca| theorems o| recent
yearsare theorems o|decomposi ti onoro|presentati on. provingthat
a structure can be presented as a composi ti on o| possi bl y si mpler
substructures,orthata structure i sdecomposabl ei ntoasequenceo|,
orasaproducto|,pre-dehnedsubstructures. Theeleganceo|thought
reachesitshighestpointwhenonemanagescompletel yto ' resol ve' a
presentedaxi omaticstructure intosubstructuresthatare o|thesame
type, but si mp|er. Fi nite group theory o||ers some spectacul arl y
accompl i shedexamp| eso|such reso| uti on.
Theunderlyingi deai sas|ol l ows. si ncethe' materi al ' o|mathemat-
ics is the pure or undi ||erenti ated mul ti ple, structures are inevitabl y
homogenouswith structuredsets . Mathematical ontol ogyi suni tary.
therearen' t,ontheonehand, pre-given' obj ects',ontheother,struc-
turalrel ati onsi nto whi chtheseobj ects enter. Everythingcan poten-
ti al l y be reduced to a mul ti p|e wi thout qua| ity, made o| the voi d
alone. Ci ven thi s |act, it i s inevitab| e that the exerci se o| thought
should consist in reducing compl ex mu| ti pl icities to si mpler mu| ti -
pl icities, through the medi um o|the axi omatic dehniti on o|si mp| e
andcomp|ex. Theconcepto|structure organi sesthi smedi um. itdi s-
tinguishes elementary conhgurations |rom more i ntricate conhgura-
tions. Ul ti mately the strategic stakes o| the thi nki ng o| being qua
J Z \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
bei ngare to discern~ given thatevery mu| ti pl eis a multi p| eojmu|-
ti|es One having no bei ng~ which mu|ti p|es a presented mu|tiple
assures, in itsturn, the presentation o|. Whencetheoremso|decom-
position, reso| uti on, orpresentati on.
Whatamathemati ci anca| | san' obj ect'i snothi ngbutamu|tipl icity
wi thi n which sub- multi pl icitiesare i ntricated, o|teni na veryopaque
|ashi on. The obj ect is a packet o| mu| ti p| es, whose i ntrication is an
obstac|e to thought, and wi thi n which must be searated, as |ar as
possi ble, the multi p| es~regi ons whose presentati onal combi nation i s
assured by the ' obj ect' . The ' obj ective' i l | usi on, what we mightcal |
thephantasmo|theobj ect,re|atestothei ni ti a| di stancebetweenthe
entang|emento|mu| ti p| esandourseparativeaccessto this entang|e-
ment through the medi um o| | anguage. Concepts, axiomatica||y
i ntroduced,determi netypeso|structures,whi charetheoperatorso|
separationanda| |owustoexhi bitsuchan ' obj ect' asanarti cu| ation
o|substructures, indicating the | atency o|sub-mul ti p| ici ties i n their
relation to the medi umo|| anguage.
That a structure can be reso| ved into substructures according to
vari ousoperatorso|combi nati on embeddedsequenceso|subgroups,
hnite or i nhnite products o| compact spaces, etc. i s the dehnitive
mark, in the inscribed strategy o| thought, o| the |act that what it
con|ronts is beingquabei ng,in thehgure o|ani nhniteentang|ement
o|pure mu| ti p| iciti es. A mathematici anwi | | saythathehas 'thought
the obj ect' or ' understood the prob| em' when he has mapped the
| i nked i mmanence o| the substructures whose presentati ve bond is
detai ned, i ni ti a| | y i n an opaque |ashi on, bythe ' obj ect' . Soit is al so
a question o|the decomposi ti on o|the obj cct, a puttingtodeatho|
the phantasm o|the obj ect, which is an obj ect on| y in so |ar as it
resists, through its consti tutiveentang|ement, its reso|ution intothe
specihc di versity o|structures. Thi nki ng by means o| substructures
deoses tbe objectand returnstoward bei ng.
4. Z. In itscommon| y accepted usage,tbeconcetojnumberisnot
a concet ojtbe structura| qe. One doesn' t speak o| ' numerica|
structure'asonespeakso|thestructure o|groupsoro|vectorspace.
What i s ca| |ed ' number-theory' today i s an i nconsi stent set whose
centre o|gravity i si n |acta certai n area o|al gebra. ri ng theory and
idea|s theory. | n particu| ar, no concept o|sub-number exists, si nce
' number' doesn' tdesignate a type o|structure.
Consequent| y, since the Creeks, the concept o|number has been
thepri nci pa| redoubto|area| ist,evenempiricist,vi si ono|mathemat-
ics. Eithernumberi staken |ora ' given' entity,ortakenasproo|that
mathematica| nomi nati ons have a strict|y symbol ic or operational
mL L\WLL \ b\-W\L J J
val ue. There is a c| osi ng-i n-on-itsel | o| the entity ' number' , which
is l i nked to its purely algebraic mani pul ati on. Certai nl y, numbers
are combined accordi ng to algebraic rules. ut it does not at
all |ol l ow |rom 7 + 5 I2 whether this statement be ana|ytic or
synthetic that7 and5 are ' substructures' o|I 2. Themosttenaci ous
i l l usion o|obj ectivism resides in theconvi cti onthat 7, 5 and I2 are
non-decomposabl e marks, whose serial engenderment assures thei r
consistency.
It woul dthere|ore be a great victory |or an ontological vi si on o|
mathematics to establ i sh the structural character o| number, to
unbi ndit|romi tsempi ri cal punctua| ity,toextractit|romthesi mple
|ormo|the obj ect. Thi sprogramme,whichwoul dmakeo|thepredi -
cate' number' a reputabletypeo|pure mul ti pl e, woul d hnd itsmost
si gni hcantmomenti nthedetermi nati ono|theconcepto|sub-number.
Thisconceptwou| dal ign numeri cal itywith thegreat structuralcat-
egories o|mathematicalthought group, hel d, space. . . , categories
by means o| whi ch thought separates and unbi nds the intrications
o|the pure mul ti pl e.
I4. J. The set-theoretical presentation o| the concept o| Number,
such aswe haveworked itthrough above, authori ses a strictdehni -
ti ono|thesub-Numbers o|a given Number. ettersti l l . aswe shal l
show step by step, a Number is dened in a unicoca| manner by
itssub-Numbers. Thereexi stsa presentationo|Numberon the basi s
o|the Numbers that are i mmanent to i t. Thus Number i n its turn
admits o| theorems o| decomposi ti on or o| presentati on. |t is
structura|ised.
I4. 4. Jhc conccpt ol sub-Numbcr
Thegenera|ideao|thesub-Numberi sverysi mpl e. weobtai na sub-
Numbero|agi venNumberi |we' partition
'
thi sNumberata poi nt
o|i tsmatter and keepeverythi ng thatcomes ' be|ore' thi s partiti on.
Si ncethematter o|a Number i s an ordi nal , a ' poi nt' o|partition i s
an elemento|thi sordi nal , andthusa smal lerordi nal . Whatthere i s
'be|ore the parti ti on' is constituted by the ordi nal s smal l erthan the
one thatdehnesthe partition. utthe ordi nal s smal lerthan a given
ordi nal are preciselytheelementso|thatordi nal . Consequently,i |N
isthepointo|thepartiti on, thenwhatcomes be|ore it, beingconsti -
tuted by al l the elements o| N i s nothing other than N itsel |. y
parti tioning atpointN we obtain a new ordi nal~matter, which is N
a matterevidently more l i mitedthanthat |romwhich it wascut.
ut, it wi l l be asked, what happens to the |orm, the numerical
section|romthematter?Here,onceagai n, thei deai sverysi mpl e. as
J4 \W\L\LT! LL1W|1\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
the |orm o| the new Number, we keep preci se| y those ordi na| sthat
arei nthe|ormo|the partitionedNumberandwhich are' be|ore'the
parti ti on. A sub-Numberwi | | tru|y be a segmento|a Number,upto
poi ntu, retai ni ngupto u that is, between 0 and u a| | thecharac-
teristics o|the partitionedNumber.
let' s give al l o| thi s a more preci se |orm. Take a Number
N W, , F N andanordi na| u which is anelemento|W, i . e. is
in the matter o| Nj. We partition N, at poi nt u, retaining only
ordi na| sthatare |owerthan u, wi thoutchangingtherestat a|l. the
e|ements o|the|ormo|the newNumberwi | | bethoseo|F Nj tbat
are|ouertban w.Wethusmakeuseo|apropertypossessedbyevery
seto|ordi na| s andthere|orebythe|ormo|everyNumber seeN3} .
because i t i s composed o|ordi na| s, its e|ements are ordered bythe
re| ati on Iti sthere|oreentire|yproperto speak o|' a| | theordi na| s
o| F N sma| |er than the ordi na| u' . The diagram compare Z. 4}
showsthi s.
W W

NumDr .

l
l
l
l

buDNumDr .
W
We wri te E/u |or the segment up topoi ntu o|a set E o|ordi na| s
o|whi chuisane| ement. E/ucontai nson| ye|ementso|E| owerthan
u butnotui tse| |,p| easenote ! . TheNumberobtainedbytheparti-
ti ono|Nj

andwhich,byextensi ono|ournotati on, wewil|ca||N, /u
whichmeansthatu mustbe in thematterW o|N, , thatu W,
wi | | haveasitscode. u, F N/u . Itsmatteri su~ thepoi ntatwhich
iti spartitioned, an ordina| thatcomes ' be|ore' W, ~ and its |orm is
composedo|a| | theordi na| si nthe|ormo|N, whi charesma| |erthan
u. y the same token, its residue i s composed o| a|| the ordi na| s
sma| | erthanu whi ch are i nthe residue o|N, .
We shou| dnotethatthi sNumber u, F Nj/u i s exact|y ' | i ke' N,
u to tbe ordina|w (exc|usice) . in |act, up to u, any ordi na| that is
i nthe |orm o|N, i s in the|ormo| u, F N/u too, andan ordi na|
thati s intheresi due o|the|ormerisal soi ntheresi dueo|the latter.
The new Numberobtai nedthrough partition i s, i nshort,the ' i niti a|
segment' o|N, , anexactcopyo|the ' begi nning' o|N, .
Take two Numbers N, and N_. I| there exi sts an ordi na| u such
that N, N(u, where N, partiti onsN_at point u,thenwesaythat
mL L\WLL \ b\-W\L J 5
N, is a sub-Numbero| N,. Or, alternativel y. a sub-Numbero| N, is
a segmentN[u o|N, .
I4. 5. One sub-Number o|N ~ and one onl y ~ can be dehned |or
every ordi nal u in the matter o| N, . there|ore |or every el ement o|
V
'
. There exist exactly W, sub-Numbers o| N, si nce an ordi nal
'counts' the ordi nal s thatprecede it. Ceneral l y speaki ng, a Number
admi tso|as many sub-Numbers asthere are ordi nal s i nits matter.
I4. 6. TakeN, /u,a sub-Numbero|N, . Iti scl ear seethedehni ti ons
and the diagram that u i sthe di scri mi nant o|N[u and N si nce,
upto u,thesetwoNumbers are identical . Now, themattero|N{u
is u. So u is outsi dethemattero|N, /u. Theorder-rel ati on between
N, anditssub-NumberN, /uwi l | there|ore dependenti rel y upon the
location o|theordi nal u intheNumberN, . whetheru i si nits|orm
or in its resi due.
Therearethere|oretuotyeso|sub-Numbers|oragivenNumber
N, .
I Sub-NumbersN, /u,whereu,~ which is atoncethei rmatterand
thedi scri mi nanto|themselvesandN, -isintbeformofN, .These
sub-Numbers are sma||er than the Number N, the di scri mi nant
u, is outside thematter o|N[u, and in the |orm o| N, .
2 Sub-NumbersN, /u
,
where u
,
is in tbe residue o|N, . Thesesub-
Numbersare|argerthanthe Number N, thedi scri mi nantu
,
i s
inthe resi due o|N, and outside the mattero|N[u
,

A sub-Number N[u, o| the hrst type wi l l be ca| led a |ou sub-
Number. A sub-Number o| the second type wi | l be cal led a bigb
sub-Number. The |ol l owing diagram shows a low sub-Numberand
a high sub-Number.
W;
NumDrN; @
l
l
buDNumDrN; /w
.@

[|Ow) l
^

l
l
buDNumDrN; /w

[hi gh)
^

J \W1\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\1b, TLb

Note thatthere are evident|y as many | ows asthere are e|ements
i n the |orm o|N[ u, must be i n the |orm , and that there are as
manyhighsastherearee|ements inthe residueo|N, u, mustbe in
the resi due .
The |ouset o|Number N, , denoted byLo Nj, i sthe seto| |ow
sub-Numbers o| N

. The symmetrica| case the set o| hi gh sub-

Numbers i s denoted by Hi ( Nj, to be read ' high set o| Number
N
.
' .
I4. 7. Thecruci a| poi nt, then, i sthe|o| | owi ng. Take a Number N,
i ts| owsetLo N andi tshighsetHi N . N i stbeoneuniqueNumber
ojminima|mattertobesituated' between' thesetso|Numberswhich
are its high and its | owsets.
This can be stated precise|y as |o| | ows.
I N is si tuated ' between' Lo N and Hi ( N in the sense that it i s
| arger than al | the Numbers o| one and smal |er than al l the
Numbers o|the other.
2 A| | theotherNumbers si tuated between Lo N andHi ( N havea
greater matterthan those o| N. N is there|ore the on| y Number
o|mi ni ma| mattertooccupytheinterva| betweenits lowsetand
its high set. Thus a NumberN is a ' cut' between its |ow set and
its hi gh set, a cut dehned ' up to matter
'
.
,
The two sets o| sub-
Numbers Lo N and Hi N dehne N itse|| by way o| |ocation
between thetwo and materia| mi ni ma| ity.
4. 8. ThestatementthatN i s between i tshigh setand its | ow setis
quite tri vi al , si nce bydehni ti on a| | the |owsub-Numbers are sma| | er
thanNanda| | thehighsub-Numbersarel argerthanN. Theprob|em
i stoestab| i shthatN i so|mi ni ma| matterbetweentheNumbersthus
si tuated, andthat it i stheon| yoneto havethi s matter.
I 4. 9. lrncpaI Icmma
Take N, , a Number, andN,, another Number, sma| |erthanN, and
o|l essermatterthanN, sothatN,< N, andM( N_ < M N

. Then
eitber N, i s a Number |rom the | ow set o| N, , or there exi sts a
Number |romthe | ow set o| N, situated between N, andN

.
Let u be the di scri mi nant o| N, and N, . Since we suppose the
matter o|N, to be |ower than that o|N, , and si nce N, < N[

u is
necessari | y i n the |orm o| N, it cannot be i n the resi due o|N, and
outsi de the matter o|N, , becausethen i t wou|d be i n the mattero|
N, andoutsi dethemattero|N, , whichpossi bi | ityi sexc|udedbythe
|act that M N, < M Nj . Consi derthesub-NumberN

/u. Since u
mc L\WLc \ b\-W\c J 7
is in the |orm o|N it is a sub-Number|rom the low set o| N, it is
smal lerthanN.
Upto, butexcl uding,u, N andN, are identical . I|the di scri mi -
nantu isoutsidethemattero|N andthere|oreequal to i tsmatter,
N isnoneotherthan thesub-NumberN{u, andi sthere|ore a sub-
Number|romthel owseto|N, . I|u i si nthe residueo|N, thenN,
issmal l erthanthe sub-NumberN, /u,becausethediscri mi nanto|N,
and N{uis necessari l yu~ N beingidentical toN, up totheordi nal
[
excl usi ve , andthere|ore al soi denti ca|to N, /u, whi ch i sa parti-
tion at u o| N, up to u excl usi ve . Now, u is outside the matter
o|N/u,sowe mustsuppose that it is i nthe resi dueo|N, . So N <
N{u.
Thus it is establ i shed that N is i ndeed ei thera Number|romthe
lowseto|N, orsmal l erthan a Number |rom the lowseto|N , .
4. 0. An absol ute|y symmetrica| chai n o | reasoni ng woul d prove
that, i| N, < N, and N, is o| a lessermatterthanNthen eitherN,
is a Number |rom the high set o| Nor else there exi sts a Number
|rom the high seto|N si tuated between N, andN,.
4. . Concl usi on. |or every number lower than or, respectively,
higherthan N ando|lessermatterthan N iti sthecaseeitherthat
iti sa Number|romthel owset or,respecti ve| y,thehi gh set o|N
orelsethata Number |rom the l owset or high set can be i nterca-
lated between it and N, . It is there|ore i mpossi bl e |or any o|these
numbers to be situated ' between' Lo Nj and Hi Nj to be higher
thaneveryelemento|Loandlowerthaneveryelemento|Hi whi lst
atthesameti me beingo|lessermatterthanN, . Theresul tisthatN
which i s indeed situated between its low set and its high set, i s o|
mi ni mal matterwi thregardtoal l Numbers thus situated.
4. Z. We wi | l now demonstrate that N is tbe on|y Number o|
mi ni mal mattersituated between i tsl owsetand its hi gh set.
Suppose there exi sted another Number N,, situated between the
low set and high set o| N and o| the same matter as N, . Such a
Number coul d be represented as |ol l ows with some abuse o| our
notation .
Si nceN, i so|thesamematterasNthediscri mi nantuo|N, and
N is necessari | y in the residue o| N, and i n the |orm o|N . Thi s
meansthatthe sub-Number N{u i s i nthe l owseto|N . Now thi s
J 8 \W\L\LT. LL1W|1\W, \LL, L\1b, TLb
sub-Number, N /u, is mani |est|y| argerthan N, thei rdi scri mi nant,
once again, i su, which i si ntheresi dueo|N, andoutsidethematter
o| N{u . Thus it cannot be the case that N i s | arger than ecery
Number in the | ow set o| N, .
H we hadthearrangement.
~ we cou| d demonstrate in the same way that there must exist a
Number |rom the high set o| N, whi ch is sma| ler than N agood
exerci se .
lt |ol l owsthatN, real l yi sthe on| yNumbero|mi ni mal matterto
be si tuated between Lo Njand Hi Nj.
N, isidentied, ' uptomatter'~ ast heuni quemi ni mal e|emento|
that matter, once the ' between' position has been hxed~ bythecut
o|twosets o|Numbers,thel owsetandthehighset.We sha| | write.
N Lo Nj/Hi Nj. We sha| | ca|| thecutLo Nj/Hi Njthecanoni-
ca| resentation o| N,

I 4. I J. A remarkab| e characteristic o| the canoni ca| representation

o|N, i s that a|| the e| ements o|Lo and o|Hi are sub-Numbers o|
N, . Every number can be represented on the basis o| Numbers
deducted |rom |esser matters than thei rown.
The canonica| presentation is a |rami ng
,
o| Number |rom above
and be| ow,rea| i sedbymeanso|moretight|ycontrol|edsectionsthan
thosecarried out by Number.
EveryNumberi sacutwi thi nsetso|sub-Numbers,everyNumber
operatesatthe| i mi to|twoserieso|Numberssubordinateandi mma-
nentto i t.
Wi ththi s, thestructura| i sati on o|theconcepto|Number iscom-
p|ete. Noton|ycanaNumberbe| ocatedasasecti oncut|romnatural
mul ti p| ici ti es, but this secti on can itse| | be presented as a point o|
cutting between twoseri eso|secti ons o|the sametype. A Number
i s preci sel y thi nkab|e as the hi nge o|its sub-Numbers. Number, so
|ar|rombeingasi mpleentity,answerstotheoremso|decomposi ti on.
iti sa structure |oca| i sab|ei nthoughtasa pointo|articu|ationo|i ts
substructures.
A Number exhi bits, as a one-resu|t, its i mmanent numerica|
determi nati ons.
| 5
LutS. C |uHU3mCHt3
COtCm
I 5. I . And so, let us penetrate into the swarmi ng o| Numbers.
A hrst remark, concerning what mi ght be ca| |ed the number o|
Numbers. thi s number i s preci sel y not a Number, it i s not even a
consistent multi pl i ci ty. Numbers are numberless.
In|act,giventhata Numberisthepai ro|anordina| ando|a part
o|thatordi nal , not onl yarethereat |eastas manydi ||erentNumbers
asthere are di ||erentordi nal s, butthere are manymore, even i |this
'more' Hickers beyondthe |rontiers o|sense. Foreacbordi na| , there
are as many di ||erent Numbers as there are di ||erent parts o| that
ordi nal . i |Wisanordi nal , servingasthemattero|certai nNumbers,
there wi | | be W theseto|parts o|W |orms~ each one vi rtual |y
extractab|e bymeans o| a numerical secti on |rom thi s matter.
Now we a| ready know that the ordi nal s do not constitute a set.
' Al | ' theordinalscannotbecounted|oronei na set-theoreticalrecol -
lecti on. I notherwords,theordinal s|ormani nconsi stentmul ti p| icity.
Consequently,the samegoes |or Numbers.
ut, what i smore,|oranygi ven mul ti pl e whatsoever, we cannot
knouexact| ywhatthe quantity o|the set o|its parts i s. Certai nl y,
weknow Cantor' s theorem that it must be l argerthan that o|the
i ni ti al set. iti salwaysthecasethat( W V. ut' howmuch' l arger?
l thasbeenproven byCde|andCohen' stheorems thattheamount
o|thi sexcess i sundeci dab| eonthebasi so|the|undamenta| axi oms
o|settheory. ln |act it is coherent wi thi n these axi oms to say that
W is' i mmense| y' | argerthanW,anditi sa| socoherenttosaythat
iti s ' mi ni mal | y' | arger. '
40 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
Ulti matel y, |or every ordi nal , there are always more possi b|e
Numbers |or whi ch it is the matter than there are elements o| the
ordi nal itsel |. And, asthi ngscurrentl ystand,theextento|this ' more'
canonl y be decided. Whi ch isto saythatthenumbero|Numbers is
an i nconsi stency o|i nconsi stenci es.
The si mpl est way to put it is to say. Numberiscoextensice uitb
8eing. It i nconsi sts, is dissemi nated and pro|used j ust l i ke the pure
mul ti pl e, thegeneral |orm o| being qua being.
5 . Z. Thi s i nconsi stent swarmi ngo|Numbers gives usto antici pate
thedi |hcultiesthat ari sewith regardtotheidentication o|a specihc
Number pi cked ' |rom the crowd' . Every Number i s cemented into
thethrongo|thosethatpack in tightly, onitsright Numbers | arger
than it and on its l c|t smal ler Numbers . No Number si mpl y,
uncompl icatedlysucceedsanyother. Everymicrozoneo|thenumeri-
cal domain teemswi tha numberlesshordeo|Numbers. Thenumeri-
ca| topo| ogyispecul i ar| ydense.Andthi sistheproblem. isitpossible
to identi |y a Number as opposed to sets o|Numbers ? Ormustwe
consign oursel ves,when we consi derseries o|Numbers, i nhnite sets
o|Numbers, to being unable to attach tothem, uni vocal l y, any spe-
ci hc Number Does the numberless throng o| Numbers necessarily
lead us into ' those i ndehnite regi ons o|the swel l where al| real ity is
di ssol ved' ?
,
Thi s is where trans-numeric i nconsi stency summons us to thi nk
the cut. | s it possi bl e, i n a |abric so dense that nothing any longer
numbersit,tocutatasecicoint Canonedetermine,bycutting,
a singu|arNumber?
5. J. Thi sprobl emi snot inthe |eastbi tacademic,norisitrelevant
solely to the thi nking o| Number. We are told every day how
' thecomplexityo|modernsociety'preventsus|rom makinganycut,
anyi nterventi on. Contemporary conservatism nolongerargues|rom
the sacredness o| the establ i shed order, but |rom its densi ty. Every
l oca| cut, it says, is real | ya 'tear i n the soci al |abric' . Leave natural
l aws the market, appetite, domi nati on to operate ~ because it i s
i mpossi ble to i nterruptthem atanypoi nt. Every poi nti stoodepen-
dent on all the others to permit the preci sion o| an i nterrupting
cut.
Thi nki ng the cut i n the hyper-dense, cl osel y kni tted |abric o|
Numbers will al |ow us to concl ude that such arguments are |al l a-
ci ous. Everypoi ntsearatesdensesetso|Numbers,everyNumberis
thepl ace o|a cut,and, conversel y,everycutprescri besoneNumber
and oneonl y. Not ' i ndehnite regi ons' , but 'a Constel l ation' .
,
L\b. mL \WLPLWPL 1mL\L 4
I5. 4. Thisprob| ema| sohasacomp| exphi | osophi ca| genea| ogy. that
o|the di a|ectic between continuous magni tude and discrete magni -
tude. | |thebeingo|thecontinuum isgrasped in i tsi nti matecoa| es-
cence, so that it is not constituted |rom distingui shab| e poi nts, but
rather |rom comp| icated ' nei ghbourhoods' , it must be thought as
di sj oi nt |rom di screte quantity, whi chenumerates successive marks.
Up to, and i nc| udi ng, Hege| , thIs opposi ti on, which subsumes and
underwrites that between geometry and ari thmetic, remai ns i n the
positiono|anenigmaticrea| |orthephi | osophyo|quantity. lnKant,
sti | | , it u| ti mate| y supports the dua| ity o||orms o|sensi bi | i ty. Space
is the transcendenta| hgure o| the conti nuous, Time ~ |rom which
proceedsnumber~ thato|discrete successi on.
The most pro|ound concept o|the cut, a concept that p| ays an
immensero| ei nmodernthought,
-
di sp| acesandre|oundsthedi a|ecti-
ca| schemawhi chconsi dersthecoup|etdi screte/conti nuousto bethe
|oundingcontradictiono|thequantitative. Thi sconceptbri ngs|orth
a si ngu| arity~ and there|ore a basi s|or distinction~ in the |abric o|
theconti nuous,inthedensestu||o|i nhnite| ysma| | neighbourhoods.
Overturni ngthecustomaryordero|thought, itshowshowa certai n
sorto|i nterruption o|the conti nuum dehnes a typeo|di screteness.
Rather than sayi ng that the conti nuum i s composed o| poi nts, it
determinespointswi thi nthecontinuum, andevendenespunctua| i ty
onthebasi so|acutintheconti nuum. Theconcepto|cutsubstitutes,
|or a prob|ematic o| comosition, a prob|ematic o| com|etion. a
point comes to ' h| | i n' a j uncture, or an impercepti b| e | acuna, in a
pre-given conti nui ty.
I5. 5. Dedeki nd` invented theconcepto|the cut i n orderto dehne
irrati ona| numbers.
Hebegi nswithrati ona| numbers. Weknowthatapositiverati ona|
numberiso|the|orm ~ andg bei ngnatura| who| enumbers. The
rationa| numbers provi

e our pri mary i mage o|conti nuity owing to

the|actthatthei rorderi sdense. A dense orderi san order such that
between two orderede|ements i s a| ways i nterca| ated a thi rd ~ and,
by reiterationo|thi sproperty,an i nhnityo|e|ements. I|wetakethe
rationa| number0 whichi srationa| becausei tcana| sobeexpressed
as any |raction | and the rationa| number |, then 0 < |. ut the
numbers
)
1
,etc. ~ andan i nhni tyo|numbers o|the |orm ~
interca| ate themse|ves between 0 and
|
.
Densitydoesnotdi rect| yexpressaquantitativeproperty.theratio-
na| numbers are an inhnity o|the type be| onging to the countab| e,
an inhnity no greater than thato|the natura| who| e numbers, and
the| atter, bei ngnoneotherthanthehnite ordi na| s, do notpresenta
4Z \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, 1TLb
denseorder. there is nonatural who| enumber between n and n+ I .
Densityi srea| l yatopo|ogicalpropertyojorder.excl udingthesi mp|e
idea o| ' another step' , o|the wel l -determinedjo||ouer o|a term, it
proposes instead a sort o|genera| coa|escence i n which every term
' sticks' to an i nhnity o| neighbours. The density o| an order is a
topol ogi ca| property, whereas successi on is an algebraic property.
Density is ' quasi -conti nuous' , one can approach a rational number
as c| ose| y as one wi shes through other rati ona| s. One even gets the
|ee| i ng that, between two rationa| numbers and, more genera||y,
betweentwo terms o|a dense order, there is no pl ace |or numbers,
or terms, ojanotber tye, since the who|e interva| , no matter how
sma| | it i s, is a| ready popul ated with an i nhnity o| rati onal s, or an
i nhnity o|terms o|the dense order.
Now, i t i s preci sel y i n this quasi -conti nui ty o| rati onal s that
Dedeki nd wi | l , by means o|the cut, dehne additiona| ' poi nts' that
wi|| comp|ete the apparent|y uncomp| etabl e densi ty o|the rati onal s
and obtai n a ' true' conti nuum, through i nterruptions in thei r
quasi -conti nuity.
We wi|| return in greater detai l to thi s procedure in chapter I 6.
ut schematica| | y. Dedeki nd considers di sj oi nt sets o| rationa|
numbers K and K, |or whi ch everye|emento|K i s |essthanevery
element o|K and whi ch, K havi ng no rati ona| internal maxi mum
norK, anyrati ona| interna| mi ni mum, aretwo' open' sets,onehigh,
the other | ow. Dedeki ndthen identies a rea| number as occupying
the p| aceo|a cutbetween K and K. This rea|numberwi|l be both
the upper | i mit o| K and the lower | i mit o| K. The density o|the
order o|rati onal sp| aysanessenti a| ro|e i nthi sconstructi on, once it
i s understood that density andthecut, |ar |rom bei ng exc| usi ve,are
pai redtogether in thought.
It must be noted strai ghtawaythat thi s procedure seeksto dene
real numbers,therati onal numbersbeingsupposedtobeknown. The
Dedeki nd cut i s who| | y an operation o|completi on. where there is
notbing, no rati onal number, the name o|somethi ng 'extra' comes
|orth. The rea| number dehned by the cut K K hl l s i n that which,
thought pure| y |rom the poi nt o|view o|rati onal s, is a coid in tbe
density, and thusa voidtowhi chnothingattests. Thisis why thecut
jounds a newspecieso|numbers,which ' compl ete' thei ni ti al density
andretroactive|yi ndi catethatthisdensitywasnotsodensethatgaps
cou|d not be di scovered therei n.
I 5. 6. We cannot hope to ' complete' the inconsi stent domain o|
Numbers, nor to |ound, outside Number, a hyper-number which
wou|dnamethei nvi si bl e| acunae i ni t. OurNumbersareuncomp|et-
L\b. mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 4J
abl e, being coextensi ve wi th eing see I 5 . I . A|| the Numbers are
al readythere. Whatcould a cutmean i n such condi ti ons ?
Neverthe|ess,thereisaverystrongconcepto|thecut|orNumbers.
This concept hol ds ' up to matter' , l i ke that o|the si ngul arel ement
separative o|a Number and i ts sub-Numbers, o|i ts identity as cut
between its |owsetand its hi gh set seechapter ! 4 .
This concept o| the cut i s presented i n the |ol l owi ng theorem
whi ch, articul ating the i nconsi stent swarmi ng o|Numbers with the
preci si on andthe unity o|a punctual cut, wel l deservesthe nameo|
jundamenta|tbeorem ojtbe onto|og ojNumber.
Civen two sets o|Numbers, denoted by |or'|rom be| ow' and
A |or ' |rom above' , such that every Number o|set i s smal l er
thanevery Numbero|setA i ntheordero|Numbers,o|course ,
thcrc aIways cxsts onc unquc ^umbcr ^ ol mnmaI mattcr
stuatcd 'bctwccn' and A. ' Situated between' means that N
is l arger than every element o| and smal ler than every el ement
o|A.
TheNumber N i s evidently not the onl y one between and A.
Thenumerical swarmingi ssuch, thedensity i ssoconsi derab| e, that
such a sol itude would be unthi nkabl e. ut it i s the on|y numberto
be |ound uitbits matter. All the others have a l arger matter, i n a
rigoroussense,si ncematters are ordinal s. the ordi nal~mattero| N is
mi ni ma| |ortheproperty' i sthemattero|aNumbersituatedbetween
the sets o|Numbers and A' .
ltwi | l notsurprise us at al | tohndmi ni mal ity here. it i s a classic
organisational pri nci pl e o| ordinal s. What is surpri si ngi s.
=
thatsuch a Numbershoul dexist,
~ that itshoul dbeunique.
ltsexi stence|oundsthepri nci pl eo|thecut. l|twosetso|Numbers
are l ike and A every Number o| being smal ler than every
Number o| A , then one can sti l l speak o| what exists ' between'
andA and is neithero| noro| A, in spite o|theprodigi ousdensity
o| the order o| Numbers. lt is thus possi bl e to make a cut in the
hyper-dense |abric o|thi s order.
Uni queness up to matter, which is to say uni queness o| the
Numberuto|mi ni mal matter |oundsthepri nci pl eo|identihcati on,
the persistence o|the count-|or-one even where al l is coa|escent, i n
dense nei ghborhoods. A cutdesignates oneNumber, anddesignates
itonthe basi so|setso|Numbers. We wi|l holdthatnocomp|exi ty,
44 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
even one pushed to the poi nto|i nconsi stency, no density, even one
pushed to the hnest i nhnitesi ma| proxi mi ti es,can authorisethe pro-
hi bi ti on agai nst cutting at a poi nt.
I 5. 7. The rest o|thi s chapter is dedicated to the demonstration o|
the |undamental theorem, the onl y theorem i n thi s book that is a
l ittlecomplex.
| do not, moreover, intend to gi ve al l the detai l s o| the proo|.
However, we are at the heart o| the mathematics o| Number, and
whatmustbeputi ntop|ayi nordertothi nkthecuti so|aconceptual
i nterest |ar surpassi ng mathematica| ontology. All truth-procedures
proceed via a cut, and here we have the abstract mode| o| ecery
strategyo|cutting. Theinte| |ectua|e||ortdemandedo|thereaderwi l l
leadhi morher, | amqui te sure, to beatitude i nthe Spi nozistsense.
I 5. 8. lppcr bound ol sct ol ^umbcrs
Si nceweareengagedi ni nvestigati onswhosecharacteri stopological ,
andsi nceinparticu| arwearewonderinghowtohndNumbers| arger
or, respective|y, sma| |er than a given set o| Numbers, let' s begin
with the si mp|est concept, that o| an upper bound. given a set o|
Numbers, does it make sense to speak o|a ' unique' Number | arger
that a| l those i n the set ?
Oncemorewemust,in viewo|theprol i |erationo|Numbers,avai l
ourselves o|a concept ' up to matter' . We wi l | prove the |ollowing.
i | is a seto|Numbers,then there exi sts a NumberN whi ch isthe
uniqueNumbero|mi ni mal matterto be l argerthanal l theNumbers
i n set . We wi l l ca| | thi s N the upper bound o| . Right away the
upperboundexhi bitsasurpri si ngcharacteristic. itisa|uaysaNumber
written W,W ~ that i s, a Number whose |orm i s its who|e
matter.
I 5. 9. Take , a set o| Numbers. Consider the ordi nal dehned as
|ol l ows. ' the sma| lest ordi nal V such that, |or eccry Number N o|
set, there exi sts a u V which i seither inthe resi dueoroutside
the matter o|N' .
One such ordi na| W exists, because 8 is a set, and is tberejore
consistent. l| W di d not exist, that woul d mean that a|| ordina|s
wou| d |a| l into the |orm o| at |east one Number N o| . ut ' al l
ordi na| s' is an i nconsi stent mul ti p| icity, and consequent|y would
also be an i nconsi stent mul ti p| i ci ty, and would not be able to be
thought as a set.
Thatthere shoul dexi stsucha ' smal lest' W results|romthe prop-
erty o|mi ni mal ity thatcharacterises theordi nal s.
L\b. mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 45
W having been specihed, nowconsiderthe Number W,W . Thi s
numberislargerthaneveryNumberi nset. |n|act,bythedehni ti on
o|W,|oreveryNumberN o|there existsa u, W whi chi sini ts
resi due oroutside itsmatter. Now, asthe|ormo| W, W isW,every
u W i s i n the |orm o| W,W . The discri mi nant o|a NumberN
ando| W, W isnecessari l ythe smal lestu Wthatis in theresidue
oroutsidethemattero|N. And,sincethi su i si nthe|ormo| W,W ,
the residue or outside-matter/|orm re|ation demands that W, W
shoul d be | argerthan N.
Si nce a Number l arger than every Number i n exists ~ namel y
W, W ~ oneo|mi ni ma| mattermustexist, i nvi rtueo|theordi na| s'
property o|mi ni mal ity.
There|ore, |et W, ,X be a Number o| mi ni mal matter |or the
property ' beingthemattero|a Number| argerthana| | theNumbers
in '. |ts |orm X is i n|actequa| to W, .
For, i| X di ||ered |rom W, ~ i |, that i s, the |orm o| the Number
wasnotitswhol ematter~ thatwoul dmeanthatthereexistedat| east
one ordi na| u W which was i n the resi due. Consi der then the
sub-Numbero| W, ,X obtainedbypartitionatu ~ thati s, thesub-
Number u, X/u } . Si nce u i s i n the resi due o| WX , the sub-
Number u,X/u_ } i sinthehighseto| W,, X} see I4. 7 . |tisthere-
|ore l arger than W, ,X , and a |ortiori l argerthaneveryNumberi n
, si nce thi s is al readythecase|or WX .
ut that i s i mpossi b|e, becauset henumber u, X/u } i s o|lesser
matter than the Number V , X } . Now, we supposed that W, , X
was o| mi ni ma| matter |or Numbers higher than every number
in .
Our i ni ti al hypothesis must be rej ected. there does not exist i n
W ,X} any element that is i n the residue, whi ch is to say that the
|orm occupies the whol e matter, and that the Number must be
written WWj.
Thereexiststhere|oreoneNumberon|yo| mi ni mal matterthati s
higherthana| | theNumberso|set. i t i stheNumber WWj, where
W, isthi s mi ni ma| matter.
We can thus |egitimate|y speak o| tbe upper bound o| a set o|
Numbers.A| readythethemeo|unicitycomestoinscri beitsel |asbar,
orcaesura,inthehyper-dense swarmi ng o|Numbers.
I 5. I O. lowcr bound ol sct ol ^umbcrs
Reasoning total|y symmetrical wi th that empl oyed |or the upper
boundwillpermitustodehnetheuni queNumbero|mi ni mal matter
thatissma| |erthan a setAo|Numbers . This wi l | bethe |owerbound
o|thesetA.Wewi | | seethat,thi stime,thi sNumberi swri tten W_, O .
4 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
its |orm is voi d,thenumeri cal sectiondoes notextractanything|rom
the matterW,.
LetA be a seto|Numbers, andl etW betheordi nal dehnedthus.
' thesma| lestordi nal suchthat,|orctc NumberNo|A,thereexists
a u W whi ch i s either in the |orm, oroutside the matter o|N' .
Thi sordi nal existsnecessari | y, becauseA i sa set,andinvi rtueo|the
pri nci p| e o|mi ni ma| i ty see above .
The Number W, O , whose matter i s W and whose |orm i s the
void, is smal |er than every Number o|A. In |act, a| | ordi na| s u,
W are in the residue o| W,O . Now, |or every Number N o| A, by
the dehni ti on o| W, there exists a u, W which is either in the
|orm o| N, or outsi de the matter o| N. The smal lest such u is the
di scri mi nant o| N and o| W, O , and its location means that W, O
< N.
Hencethereexi stsaNumbersma| l erthaneveryNumberin A,and
~ bythepri nci p| eo|mi ni ma| ity~ thereexistsatl eastoneo|mi ni mal
matter, say W_,X .
I t i s easy t oprove that X is necessari | y the empty set. l|it were
not, that woul d mean that there exi sted a u, W_ whi ch was in
the |orm o| W,, X . ut then the sub-Number o| W,, X obtained
by partition at u,, that i s, u, , X/u, } , wou|d be in the low set o|
W,,X seeI4. 7 . Itwouldthenbesmallerthan W,,X , andthere|ore
smal ler than every Number in A, al though o| lesser matter than
W,, X . which i si mpossi bl ei nviewo|themi ni mal i ty o|W, |orthi s
posi ti on.
There|ore,thereexi stsoneuni queNumbero|mi ni ma| matterthat
i s sma| |erthaneveryNumber in A. lt i sthe Number W,, O , where
W is thi s mi ni mal matter. The Number W, 0 is the lower bound
up to matter o|set A.
I 5. I I . lundamcntaI thcorcm, hrst part. Lxstcncc
' Exi stence' means here. exi stence o| at |east one Number situated
between two sets o|Numbers and A, whi ch, i n an abuse o| our
usua| notati on, we shal | genera| | ywrite as < N < A.
Take andA,twosets o|Numberssuchthatevery Numbero|
is sma| |er than every Number o| A. Our techni que wi | | consist in
constructing,between andA, step by step~ that isto say,ordi nal
by ordi nal ~ starting |rom 0, a NumberN ' suspended' ateverystep
i n such a way as to assure us that nothi ng up to the ordi nal W in
questi on,whichi stosay, |oreverysteptakeni ntheprocedure~ can
|orcetheNumberNtobesmal l erthanaNumberOf,orl argerthan
a Number o| A. We might al so say that we are going to construct
L\b. mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 47
N |rom its sub-Numbers o| i ntersectingmatter, by ' choosi ng' to put
anordi nal W i n the |orm or i n the resi due o|the Number N under
constructi on, dependi ngon the relati onshi pbetween thesegmento|
theprocedure o|N whi ch goes |rom d to W, and the vari ous sub-
Numbers in and i n A.
The under|ying i dea is thattheconstruction o| a cut makes nec-
essary a |oca| domi nati on o| the substructures i mpl icated in the
course o| thi s constructi on. Thi s i s a general | aw o| practice, at
least in so |ar as the latter ai ms at e||ects o| cutting |oundati onal
interrupti ons .
This techni que boasts the very great interest o| highl ighti ng the
l i nk between cutting and a sort o| rocedure ojneutra|isation. So
thatN can sl i de i n between the Numbers o| andthe Numbers o|
A, we aregoi ngto remai n mi nd|ul o|the |act thatthe pri nci p| e o|
order, at every poi nt o|N, ' neutral i ses' the di scri mi nati on between
theNumbers o| andthe Numbers o|A. Thegreat di |hcu|ty being
to know when to stop ourselves, when to x the matter o| the
NumberN, whi chwewoul dhavetraversed,allthewhi |e postponi ng
itsclosure.
In all domai ns o| thought, to proceed with a precise cut i n a
densely ordered |abric is to ca| cul ate a prudent tactics o| i nser-
tion step by step, and then to ri sk a stopping poi nt whi ch wi l l
i rreversi bl y hx the intermedi ary term. The cut thus combines the
neutrality o| the i nterval and the abruptness o| the interruption.
This is why great strategies o| thought must al ways attain a
mastery both o| the patience whi ch, poi nt by poi nt, opens and
enlarges a l acuna, ando|thei mpati encewhichcomes to seal andto
name i ts existence |rom thi s moment |orward, wi thout return or
recourse.
I 5. I2. Sowebegin|romtheordi nal 0, andwetraversetheordi nal s,
assigni ngtoeacha val ue j W ~ theval uesbei ng| |or|orm , R |or
residue , orM |ormatter . Theva| ue Mcanobvi ous|yon|ybegiven
once,andlasto|al l , becausetheNumberNthatwewanttoconstruct
hasonlyonematter. |oranordi nal W, i |j W F,wewi | l putW i n
the |orm o| the Number N underconstructi on, i| j W R, we wi l l
putit intheresidue. Sol ongas wehavenot assignedtheval ue M,
the sub-Numbers are sti | l ' under construction' . The procedure
amounts to hxing a l ocation-status |or each ordi nal W, so that the
sub-Number N/W, as the procedure continues, wi l l appear retroac-
tively as never constrai ni ng N to be l arger than any Number o|A,
or smal l erthan any Number o|.
48 \W\L\LT. LL | W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
Thestrategicpatienceo|theconstructiono|acutconsistsin insert-
ing addi ti onal |oca| val ues without compromi si ng the chances o|a
g|oba|cut. |t is a work thatproceeds point by poi nt, but is retroac-
tively deci ded as an i rreversi ble and general caesura.
Wewi | l denotebyNbandNa,withi ndicesi |needbe,theNumbers
o| andA. Niwi | l designatetheinterval licNumber,theNumberwe
wi shto construct between and A.
I|, |or a given NumberNb or respectively Na , theval ues attrib-
uted by jto ordinals sma|ler than an ordi na| W val ues o|the type
| or R, whi ch the ordi nal s o| the Ni under construction take are
exactly those whi ch l ocate these ordi nal s in Nb or respectively in
Na , then we say that W identies Ni and Nb or respectively Na .
W' s i denti |yi ng Nb or Na and Ni means that, in every case, no
ordi nal smal lerthanWcandiscri mi natebetweenNb orNa andNi.
In particular, the di scri mi nant o|Nb, orNa, andthesegmento|Ni
underconstruction a segmentwhich ranges |rom 0 toW exc| usive
cannot hgure in theordi nal si n|eri ortoW. Whi chamountstosaying
~ andthi s i sthemosttractabl e |orm o|there| ation o|identihcation
atordi na| pointW~ that,uptoW,the' sub-Number' Ni/Wisidenti-
cal to thesub-NumberNb/W respectively Na/ .
Wewi l l denoteby|d. W, Nb the|actthatWi dentihesNiandNb.
And the same thi ng |or Na. Al l the whi l e we shou| d keep i n mi nd
that Id. W, Nb means thatNi/ Nb/W.
The strategic idea is toconstruct an Ni ' neutral i sed' |or order, by
makingsure, eachtime one comesto ' theend' o|a serieso|ordi nal s
whi chidenti|yNb orrespective|yNaandtheNiunderconstructi on,
that the choice o| a val ue |or j W wi | l not be ab| e to compromise
ourchanceso|positinga hypothetical ly completedNi,whichwould
be interval l ic between and A. We must j ust make sure that no
ordi nal comesto be in the posi ti on o|an un|avourabl e discri mi nant
|orcing Nito be smal lerthan a Number o|, or l argerthan one o|
A. The prudence o|thecutconsi sts here in never ri ski ng l osi ngthe
chance to take up an i nterval l i c positi on. Conserve itschances, that
i s the maxi m o| the ' step by step' phase o| the construction o|
a cut.
I 5. I 3. Wewi l l positthe|ol l owi ngrul es~ ruleso|constructiono|Ni
|or the ordinal sstarting |rom 0.
K L 1 . | || d. W, Nb andW i sthe mattero|Nb,thenj W F.
We put the ordi nal W i nthe |orm o|Ni whenever, at theend o|
an Nb/W i denti cal to Ni/, W i s the matter o|Nb. So, usi ng a
bl ack square to denote a belongingto the |orm.
No
T
N|^
NoN

-_
N|N
L\b. mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 4

K L Z. I| Id. W, Na andW is the matter o| Na,thenj W R.

The diagram shoul d becl ear, marki ng with / a belonging to the
residue.
N| g
N|N
Z
w

-_
Na ^
~
NaN
`
K L J. I| rules ! and2 do not appl y|or a givenW, buti nstead
we have an Nb such that Id. W, Nb with W i n the |orm o|Nb,
thenj W F. | |cases I and2 donotappl y, weputWinthe|orm
o|Ni each time that, at the end o| an Nb/W identi cal to Ni/W,
W is in the |orm o| Nb.
No
N|

w
K L 1. I| rul es ! and2 do not appl y, andwe have an Na such
that Id. W,Na with W inthe resi dueo|Na,thenj W R.
N
Z
w
z w
-
Na ^
.
w

50 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\1b, TLb

K L J. I| none o| the hrst |our rul es app| y, it must be the
case that, |or the W consi dered, no N| such that Id. W, Nb has
W |or matter ori n its |orm, and that noNa such thatl d. W,Na
has W |or matter or in its resi due. Under such condi ti ons, at
poi nt W, i | there exi sts an N| |or whi ch |d., W,N|), W i s in
the residue o| N|, and i | it is the case that |d. W,Na , W is in
the |orm o| Na. We then say that f W M, which comp|etes
the construction o| Ni.
As j usti hcati on |or thi s rul e, notethe |ol lowi ng. si nce al l N| or
respectively Na where W is notthus l ocated~ so, W in the resi due
or respectively i n the |orm ~ are such that W does not identi|y
themwithNi,then, |or these N| orNa , it is thecasethatN|/W =
Ni/W orrespectively Na/W = Ni/W . |n otherwords, these N| and
these Na havea|ready been di scri mi nated, be|ore ordi nal W, bythe
process Ni. The only N|and Na notto have al ready been discrimi-
nated are those where W i s i n the residue or respective|y i n the
|orm .
Ci ven thi s remark,wecanstate that ru|e J rescri|es uitb com-
|etejustication tbedecision ofc|osure oftberocess Ni . Wecan
posi t. f W M, therebyhxi ng W as the ordi nal~matter o|Ni, and
there|ore as that pl ace where the process o|the construction o|Ni
ends.
I|W i s the matter o|Ni, it i s located outsi dethe matter|orthat
Nisuosed c|osed in w. Now, W does not di scri mi nate Ni |rom
N| where W is in the resi due, or |rom Na where W is in the |orm.
The |ocation|or Niwill remain ' between' andA,sincetheschema
o|the order-re|ation is precise|y R < oM< |. We will have.
Nb *
Z
Z
N/
|c+
W

l
-
P
N "
W
Cl osure is enti rely possi bl e, si nce, beyond ordi nal W, a|| N| and
Naaredi scri mi nated by Ni before W through rules I to4, atoint
W by ru|e 5 , and our rules re|lect the |act that this di scri mi nation
always goes inthedi rection N|< Ni< Na.
This regul ati on, however, merits i mmediateexami nati on.
L\1b. 1 mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 5
I5. I4. It is essenti al toconhrmthatourrul esdo notcontradict one
another.
Take |or example rules I and 2. I|by some mi schance i t shoul d
happenthatattbesametimeId. W, Nb andId. W, Na , wi thW the
matter both o| Nb and o| Na, then W would have to be pl aced
si multaneous| y i n the |orm and i n the resi dueo|Ni . . .
ut such a case cannot ari se. ecause, i |W i s the matter o|Nb
and o|Na, since every Number o| is smal l erthaneveryNumber
o|A,iti sthecasethatNb< Na. And,sincetheyhavethesamematter
W, theirdiscri mi nantmustbe less than W, which i sto say thatthere
is atleastoneordi nal u W whi ch doesn' thave thesamelocation
inNbandi nNa. Itisthere|orenot possible |or sub-NumbersNb/W
and Na/W to be identical . Thi s means, moreover, that, i| both
Id. W, Nb and Id. W, a , thei r common identity must be Ni/W. So
rules ! and2 are compati b| e.
uttakerules3 and4. I|bysomemi schancethereisaW|orwhi ch
rul es ! and 2 do not appl y, and there exist Nb and Na |or whi ch,
hrstly,Id. W, Nb andId. W,Na , and, second| y, W is i nthe|ormo|
NbandW is intheresidue o|Na, W woul dhave to be pl aced both
in the |orm and i n the residueo|Ni.
ut o| course such an un|ortunate ci rcumstance cannot ari se.
ecause, i |W i s i nthe resi dueo|Na and in the |orm o|Nb, then it
di scri mi nates between Nb and Na. ut thi s could not be thei r dis-
criminant, otherwise it woul d be the case, with regard to thi s | oca-
tion, that Na < Nb, whi ch is prohi bited by < A. There|ore the
di scriminant is sma||er than W, and, as be|ore, it i s i mpossi b|e that
Nb/W Na/W, which makes it necessary to suppose their common
equal ity to Ni/W.
I 5. I 5. Now we wi l l see whether, wi th these rul es, we do i ndeed
preserve our chances that Ni wi l l sl i p i n between a|| the Numbers
o| and a|| the Numbers o|A, and there|ore between all Nb and
al l Na.
Whenweapp| yru|e ! , wegivetheva| ue | totheordi nal W. Thi s
certai nl ycannotmakeNibecomel essthan a Numbero|, because,
i |Wisthedi scri mi nanto|N/ando|anNb, beingi nthe|ormo|Ni,
itwi l l always be thecasethat Nb < N/.
ut, given the |act that we put W in its |orm, don' t we ri sk Ni
becoming larger than a Numbero|A? Forthi s it woul d have to be
thecasethatW was the di scri mi nanto|Niand o|anNa. utthen
it wou| d a| so ul ti mately be the di scri mi nanto|the Nb o|whi ch W
is thematter sinceweappl yrule ! ando| Na. Now, weknowthat
Nb5 Na. I|thei rdi scri mi nant isthe matter o|Nb, it must be i nthe
I 5Z \W\L\LT. LL1W1|\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
|orm o| Na. Thi s |ocation o| W ~ W being the di scri mi nant o| Ni
and Na ~ prohi bits us |rom havi ng the order Na < Ni.
So, inapp| yingru| e !, wecanbesurethatthe|ocationthatwehx
|orWi ntheNumberNiunderconstructionentai|sneitberanunue|-
come andjrustrating Ni < Nb, nor a jata| Na< Ni . At pointW, Ni
stays si tuated ' between' and A.
Theexami nati ono|theotherru|es|eadsustothesameconc| usi on.
Let' scarry outthi s exami nation |or ru| e 5 |orru|es 2, 3 and4 the
methods are the same as |orru|e !. Letthe reader prove this as an
exerci se, wi th the he| p o|the note, ' and above a| | o| the diagram
bel ow.
Ru| e5 comes i ntopl ay when rules I to4 are not appl icabl e. The
W underconsideration makes no identihcation between anyNb or
Na and Ni i| W is |ocated as matter o| Nb ru| e ! , matter o| Na
ru| e 2 , |orm o| Nb ru| e3 or residue o|Na ru|e4 . I|, then, it is
thecasethatI d. W, Nb , orId. W,Na , itisbecauseWisintheresidue
o|Nband/ori nthe|ormo|Na.Thesetwohypothesesarecompatib|e
thi s time. the i dentihcations i n question cou|d obtai n, and W cou|d
be botb i n the resi due o| Nb and i n the |orm o|Na. Ru| e 5 then
compe| s us to make the gesture o|c| osure j W M, which deter-
mi nes W as matter o| the i nterva| l ic Number Ni. |n the Ni thus
c| osed,W i s|ocatedoutsidethematter. Canthi schoicemakeNi|ess
thansomeNa, accordingtothere|ation R < oM? No,because,i |W
di scri mi nates between thi sNa andNi, with W in the resi due o|Na,
thi s wou| d be a case |or the app| i cati on o| rule 4, whi ch wou|d
exc| udetheuseo|ru|e 5. And, i nthesameway,itcannotbethecase
thatNi< Nbaccordingtothe re|ationoM< F, becausethe| ocation
o|thedi scri mi nantW inthe|orm o|anNbcompe| s, |or W,theuse
o|rule 3 rather than ru|e 5. Ru| e5, appl ied when it is proper to do
so, cannot entai l that N/ < Nb. And, as it cannot entai l Na < Ni
ei ther,itleavestheprocedureNi,atpoi ntW,i nthei nterva|between
andA.
Soiti sthat,ateveryordi nal poi ntW,theapp|icationo|ourru|es
' | oca| | y' si tuates Ni, in the |orm o|the sub-Numbers Ni/, i n an
i nterva| l ic posi ti on with regard to andA. Our step-by-step | abour
i spursuedwi thout Nisurpassi nganyNa, orbeingsurpassedbyany
Nb. Weconserve ourchances a| l thewaythrough theconstruction.
Anen| argeddi agramshowshowNiproceeds . Wehave, above,some
NumbersNbo|,bc| ow, someNumbersNao|A, and,i nthemi dd| e,
the process o|Ni. The ordi na| sW, toW

present, i norder, caseso|

theapp| icati ono|thehveru|es. Squares,asteri sksand barsdesignate
|orm, matterandresi due. Youwi | l reca| | that,whenapointi smarked
i n an Nbor anNa, it means that, bejore that ordi na| point, Na or
L\b. 1 mL \WLPLWPL mL\L 5J
Nb is identical to Ni rel ati on o| i dentihcation at an ordi nal
poi nt .

N/ -

W
.
Z
`.
X X
f
1.
`
.
Z
ru| 1 ru| Z ru|3 ru| 4 ru| b
w "
HO;
HO
Hb
&

H;
H
H
i IIu| s 1 andZ dOnOtapp| y i IIu| s 1 and4 dOnOtapp| y
The whole subtlety o|the enterprise l ies i n mi ni mi si ng the ri sks,
inmaki ngsurenottoincreasetheval ueo|Ni topoi ntV i nparticu-
l ar, in notgiving it val ue F unti l one is sure thatthi s i ncrease wi l l
havenoe||ectwithregardtoA, andi nnotdecreasi ngthi sval ue the
valueR unlessa| l e||ect with regardto isexcl uded. ThusNi, per-
petual l y maxi mi sing the neutral i sati on o|the e||ects o| order, sl i ps
in between and A.
And, when thetime |or cl osure arrives rul e 5 , |or a W si tuated
betweenresidue Nb and |orm Na , we retroactivelysettheseal on
thetacti cs,arrivingata Numberg|oba||ysi tuated between andA,
because it is protected, |oca||y, |rom any prohi bi ti on agai nst thi s
possi bi l ity.
I5. I6. lundamcntaI thcorcm, sccond part. lncty
We have j ust indicated the strategy ~ combi ni ng l oca| , neutra| i sing
patiencewitha global deci si ono|cl osure~ thatal l owstheexi stence
to be establ ished, in every case, o| at least one Number situated
between two sets o| Numbers and A such that i n an abuse
o| notation < A. In vi rtue o| the pri nci pl e o| mi ni mal i ty o|
ordi nal s, there must exi st at least one such Number o| mi ni mal
54 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
matter. wewi l l consi derthe property ' bei ngthe mattero|a Number
si tuated between and A', and the mi ni ma| ordi na| |or this
property.
Itremai nsto beshownthata Numbero|mi ni mal mattersituated
between and A is uni que, whi ch wi | l permit us to identi|y tbe
numerica| cut between andA.
Suppose that there were two. we woul d have the |ol l owing
arrangement.
~ with N

and N, being o| the same matter mi ni ma| |or this

| ocati on .
Si nce N, andN, are o| the same matter, N

< N meansthatthe
di scri mi nantmustbei nthe residueo|N, andinthe|ormo|N_.Take
this di scri mi nant, u. Consi derthesub-NumberN

/uo|N
.
. Si nce u
is in the resi due o| N_ thi s sub-Number be|ongs to the high set o|
N, . it isthere|ore | argerthanN , . ut,since u i sthedi scri mi nanto|
N[ andN,, andthere|orethesma| |estordi na| todi scri mi natebetween
them, then N

and N, are i denti ca| up to u exc| usi ve . This means

thatthesub-NumberN{u i sidentica|tothesub-NumberN,/u.The
di scri mi nant o|N{u ando|N, can on| y be u, which i soutsidethe
matter o|N

/u and in the |orm o|N, . Consequently, N

/u< N,.
Sohna| | y, we have the arrangement.
Which i sto saythatN{u is a|so situatedbetween andA. utthis
i s i mpossi b| e, giventhatit i so|lessermatterthan thato|N]

which
i s supposed| y mi ni ma| |or the |ocationbetween andA.
We mustrejectouri ni ti a| hypothesi s. there arenottwo Numbers
o|mi ni ma| matter between and A, there is on|y one.
Thetwosets andA there|oredetermi neuni voca| | yoneNumber
o|mi ni mal mattersituatedbetweenthem. ThisNumberwi | | becal |ed
the cut o| and A, and we wi | l posi t that N /A, each time that
N can be identi hed asthe unique cut o| ando|A.
I 5 . I 7. There i soneverypecu| i arcaseo|thecut. taketwoNumbers
N[ andN, such that N[ < N, . Andtake, |or andA,the sets which
have |or e| ements on| y N[ and on|y N,, that i s, the sing|etons N
and N, . We remai n wi thi n the parameters o| the |undamental
theorem, which i s to say that there exi sts a uni que Number N
,
o|
mi ni ma|mattersi tuatedbetweenN
|
andN. Wethusrediscoverhere
L\b. mL \WLPLW1PL mL\L 55
thecl assi ccondi ti ono|densityo|an order,whi chwehavementioned
with regard to the rational s. between two Numbers there a|ways
exi sts a thi rd, andthus an inhni ty o|Numbers . |or us, besi des thi s,
there is an addi ti onal determi nati on. between N[ and N, there is
always a uniqueNumbero| minimal matter.
Wecan there|ore put |orward a pri nci pl e which everything gives
ustoexpect,ando|whichtheuni cityo|thecutprovidesthei nhnitely
strongconcept. the order o|Numbers i sdense.
utmorepro|oundthanthis isthecorre|ation i nthoughtbetween
this number|ess density, this coal escence whi ch i nconsists in the
approach to a|| Number, and the possi bi | ityo|counti ng |or one the
Numbero|mi ni mal matter which cuts the |abric wi thout l acuna o|
numerica| ity ata certain poi nt.
' Cut' here designates the i nci si on o| thought i n the inconsistent
|abric o| being, that which Number sections |rom the ground o|
Nature. Iti saconcepto|si ngu| arity. Perhapstbeconcepto|si ngu| ar-
i ty, at | easti ntheordero|being. Forthere i sthatothersi ngu| arity
whichcuts across being, and which isthe event.
|
C lUHDCtCSS CHC3HtHCHt
O tC |3CC O luHDCt
6. . A review, to begi n with.
! A Number is an ordi nal ~ the matter o| the Number, M N , in
whichi ssectionedaparto|thatordi nal ~ the|ormo|theNumber,
F N . We also consider that part o|the ordinal~matter that |al l s
outsi de thesecti on, outsi dethe|orm. theresi dueo|the Number,
R N .
2 The location o| an ordi na| withregardto NumberN is its posi -
tion in bel ongi ng ornon-bel ongingto oneo|thethree 'compo-
nents'o|Number. |orm,resi due,matter.Therearethreelocations.
i nthe |orm, i nthe residue andoutsi de thematter.
3 The di scri mi nant o| two Numbers N, and N is the sma| lest
ordinal not to be located si mi l arly i n both Numbers. I| no
such di scri mi nant exi sts, then the two Numbers are equal they
have the same matter, the same |orm, and there|ore the same
resi due .
4 Dependi ng on the location o| thediscri mi nant, we candehne an
order-rel ati on transi tiveandnon-reHexi vebetweentwodi ||erent
Numbers. Wedenotethi sthroughN, < N and bysayi ngthatN,
i s smal l erthanN_ . This relation i sa total orderoverthedomain
o|Numbersi nthesensethat,giventwodi ||erentnumbersN, and
N, it is al ways thecaseei therthat N, < N or N < N, .
5 Theorder-rel ati on is dense. given two NumbersN, andN_ where
N, < N, there always exi sts an N, whi ch comes in between N,
andN . P < N, < N .
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW1 \ mL LPLL \ W\L 57
6 Takea NumberN, o| matter W, and an ordi nal u, smal |erthan
W, sothatu, E Wj. TheNumbero|matteruwhichi sexactly
l i ke N, up to u, excl usive the |orm o|this Number being con-
stituted by al | ordi na| s smal |er than u, that are i n the |orm o|
Nj wil l be cal led a sub-Number o| N a sub-Number o| N,
which is a 'cut' o|N, at poi nt u, . We denote thi s sub-Number
N{u

.
7 Amongstthesub-Numberso|Nsomearesma| | erthanN, when
u, isi nthe|ormo|Nj, othersarel argerthan N, when u, i si n
theresi dueo|Nj. The|ormer, gathered together,constitutethe
lowseto|Ndenoted by Lo Nj. Thel atterconstitutethehigh
seto|N denoted by Hi Nj.
S Itcan be proved that N, is thecut o| its l ow set and its high set
inthe|ol l owingway.i ti stheNumbero|mi ni mal mattersi tuated,
accordingtotheordero|Numbers, between the l owsetandthe
high set l arger than every Number i n the low set and smal ler
thanevery Number i nthe high set .
Moregeneral l y, itcan beshownthat,given two sets o|Numbers
suchthata|lthoseo|thehrstsetaresmal lerthan all thoseo|the
second,thereexists a uni queNumberN o|mi ni mal mattersitu-
atedbetween thesetwo sets. Taki ng two such sets and A, we
cansaythatthi sNumberNisthecuto|andA,whi chi swritten
N /A. Thus N, Lo Nj/Hi Nj. This speci hed cut is cal led
the canonical presentation o|N, .
I6. 2. We wi l l now take a strol l through the borderless domai n o|
Numbers,pointingoutsomeo|them, andi nparticul aral l thosetra-
ditiona| species. natural whole numbers, negative whole numbers,
ordi na| s, rati ona| s, real s. utal sosomanyothers,whi chhnitudeand
thewretchednesso|ouri nheritedpracticeo|Numberkeeps|romus.
Howneg|igi blearenumbersamongstNumbers !Thebeingo|Number
exceedsineverydi rectionthatwhi chweknowhowtonegotiate.Our
strength, however,i sthatwepossessa wayo|thi nki ngo|thi sexcess
o|beingover thought.
I6. J. Zero
Therei sa verydistinctiveNumber,theNumber 0, 0} , whose matter
is the void, and whose |orm, consequent| y, is also the void. Thi s
Number inscri bes as numeri cal gesture the absence o|everygesture,
in de|aul t o| any matter. It is absol ute Zero, the Number wi thout
numerical ity. O|course, its ontological |oundation i stheempty set,
the suture to being o| every text, the advent o| being qua being
to the thi nkab| e. There i s no doubt that it is this void that we are
58 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
thi nkinghere as Number. ut thi nkingitas Numbermakesa di ||er-
ence. It is not|or examp| ethe samethi ng, not the sameNumber,as
itwou| dbe i |thevoi dwason| yi ntheposi ti ono|matter,oron|yin
the position o| |orm. The number 0 , 0 , or ! , 0 , whose |orm is
void,cannotata||bei dentihedastheZeroo|Number. Certai n| y, the
act o|secti oni ng it i s equal | y nul l , i t doesn' t extract anything |rom
its matter, but thi s matter subsists unaltered, constituting, in the
absenceo|any act,the real substanceo|thatwhi chthi sgesturenever
even started. The only true Zero i s that which subtracts itsel ||rom
a| | numeri ca| gesture because it has notbing, no materi al or natura|
mu| ti p| icity, upon which this gesture cou|d be carried out or not
carriedout. Zeroisthusoutsidea||appreci ati on, positiveornegative,
o|the act o|numeri ca| secti on. It i s, very precise|y, neither positive
or negati ve. It subsi sts in itse| |, inaccessi b| e to a| l eval uabl e action.
Zeroi s beingquabei ngthoughtas Number, |rom wi thi nonto|ogy.
I6. 4. Si ncewehavesaid, a | itt|emetaphori ca| | y, thatZeroi sneither
positive nornegative, can we not give a precise numerical sense |or
these adj ecti ves ? E|ementary arithmetic a| ready i ntroduces ~ to the
obscure re| i sh o| every schoolchi | d ~ who|e negative numbers such
as
=
4
Consi der |or examp| e the Number N, whose matter is the | imit
ordi na| u, andwhose|ormhason|ytheordi nal d ase|ement. Which
i sto saythatthe |orm isthesi ng|eton o|0, andthatthenumberN
canbewri tten. u, 0} } . | |wecompare thi sNumbert oZero,thati s,
to ( 0, 0 , we can c| ear| y seethat thei rdi scri mi nanti s 0, which is in
the |orm o|N, andoutsi de thematter o|Zero anyordi na| whatso-
ever,inc|uding0, isoutsidethemattero|Zero,whi chhasnomatter .
The ru| es o| order indicate to us then that N, is |arger than Zero.
It makessenseto saythatN, is ositice.
Consi der now the Number N, whose matter i s a| so the | imit
ordi na| u, but whose |orm i s thi s time the sing|eton o| ! . This
Number N, can be wri tten u, I } } . Once agai n, the di scri mi nant o|
N, andZerois0. Itcanbe|oundthi sti meintheresi dueo|N_si nce
the |orm o|Ndoesnotcontai nd i tonl ycontai ns I , but its matter,
u, doescontai nit,u beingthe| i mi tco| |ectiono|al|thehni teordi nal s,
i nc| uding d o|course. We can see, then, that 0, bei ng outside the
matter o|Zero and i n the resi due o| N, N,, i s sma||er than Zero.
So i tmakes sense to saythat N i snegatice.
I6. 5. Posi ti veNumbers andnegative numbers
Our examp|es can be genera| i sed i n the |o| l owing |ashi on. the dis-
cri mi nantbetweenZeroandanyotherNumberwhatsoeverisa|uays
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 5
the empty set 0. |orZero is the onl y numberwhose matter is voi d,
andthere|oretheonl yNumberwhere0 i slocatedoutsi dethematter.
|orevery otherNumber, 0 i s l ocated i nthe |orm or i n the resi due.
And,si nce0 isthesmallestordi nal , iti scertai nl ythediscri mi nanto|
Zero ando|every numberotherthan Zero.
Thesituationi svery simple,then. i |anyNumberotherthan Zero
has 0 i n its |orm, then it is l arger than Zero. I|, on the other hand,
d is i n i ts resi due, it is smal |er than Zero, si nce 0 wi | | always be
outsidethemattero|Zero.
Wewillthusdehneposi ti veandnegativeNumbersinthe|o| | owi ng
way. A Numberisositiceij0isane|ementojitsjorm. Itisnegatice
ij0 is ane|ementojits residue.
I6. 6. Somesignihcantconsequenceso|thedehni ti ono|positive and
negativeNumbers.
! Si nceZero is wi thoutmatter,wi thout|orm andwi thoutresi due,
d cannot be an el ement either o|the |orm or o| the residue o|
Zero. The description i n I6. J i sthus trans|ormed into a mathe-
matical concept. Zero is neitherpositive nornegative.
Z Zero is not at al l the smal lest Number. It is l arger than every
negativeNumber,andnegativeNumbersconsti tute,toal l appear-
ances, a l i mitless, inconsi stent domai n. etween the negative
NumbersandthepositiveNumbers,Zerol iesatthecentreo|that
which hasnoperiphery.
3 Zero is not dehnedbyextrinsicoperati ons, it is not i ntroducedas
the' hrst'term o|a successi on, norasthe' neutralelement' o|an
operation(anattri butewhichitpossessesi ncidental l yandsecond-
ari ly . It is characterised by its numerica| being. We have not
strayed|romourontological path, which subordi nates all opera-
tionaloralgebraicconsi derationstoi mmanentcharacteri sati on.
4 More general | y speaki ng, the categories ' positive' and ' negative'
have been introduced into the consideration o| the order o|
Numbers onl y |or convenience o|exposi ti on. The predicate ' has
d i n its |orm' or ' has 0 i n its resi due' are whol l y i ntri nsi c. The
examination o|the bei ng o|a Number al one tel | s us whether it
is positive or negative, wi thout comparing it with any other
Number.
J Positivity does not depend i n the |east upon the ' quantity'
o| the matter o| a Number, or the si ze o| its |orm, but on| y
upon the l ocation o| the voi d. The Number Z, 0} } i s posi ti ve,
whi lst the Number ( , ( 0 , whose matter is and whose
|orm takes i n al| o|this matter apart |rom 0, i s negati ve. There
0 \W1\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
is hnite posi ti ve numeri cal i ty, and i nhnite negative numericality,
regardless o| whether the question is one o| matter or one
o| |orm.
6 I|a NumberN is posi tive,then,since0 is in its |ormandis neces-
sari l ymi ni mal , it|ol l owsthatecerysub-NumberN/uo|N except
|or Zero, whi ch is a sub-Number o| every Number, the sub-
Number N/O is al so posi ti ve. the elements o|the |orm o| N/u
are actual l ythe elements o| the |orm o| N up to the ordi nal u,
and, unless u is 0, 0 wi l l be amongst these elements, since N is
posi ti ve. Si mi l arly, every sub-Number o| a negative Number N,
apart |rom 0, i s negative it has 0 in its resi due, as N does . |n
particul ar, the non-nul l elements o|the low set and al l the ele-
ments o|thehigh seto|a positi ve Numberare positive, l i kewise,
all the elements o|the low set and all the non-nul l elements o|
the high seto|a negativeNumberare negati ve.
I 6. 7. Meditation on thenegative
Theconcept o|negativity, as proposed bythe uni verse o|Numbers,
i severy bi taspro|oundas itsapparentparadoxical ity suggests. One
mightthi nkathrstthat negativityconsistedpreci sel yi ntheincorpo-
rationo|thevoi di ntothe|ormo|Number. Isn'ttheremorepositivity
in a |orm that has not been marked by the stigma o|nothingness?
I sn' tthe|enitudeo|thenumeri cal secti on betterassured i |itexpels
|rom its posi ti ve production that dubi ous indexo|the multi pl ethat
al lows nopresentati on?
Number enj oi ns us here to di sabuse ourselves o| any remai ni ng
temptation towards an ontol ogy o| Presence. || thc lack o| voi d in
the |orm o| Number seems ' positi ve' , thi s is the case onl y i | we
i denti |y bei ng wi th the pl enitude o| the e||ectively presented. We
are then tempted to i ndex to the negati ve every occurrence o| that
which presents nothing, every mark whose mul ti pl e~re|erent i s sub-
tracted. ut the truth is entirely otherwi se. it i s precisely underthis
mark that being qua being comes to thought. | n which case there
is |ess ontological dignity in a Number that does not retai n this
mark in its |orm than i na Numberthatdoes so retain i t. |t is |rom
the poi nt o| the voi d that the dignity o| being, the superiority o|a
Number,can legitimately be measured. Numerical superiority is the
symbol o|thi s superi ority with regard to what is at the disposal o|
thought.
The ontol ogi cal cl arity |or a subtractive ontology o|the state-
ment ' aNumber i snegative i |the mark o|the void i si n its residue'
underlies whatmightbecal ledtheethi cal verdicto|Number. I hope
to show one day that what i sEvi l , i nany si tuati on wherethevoidis
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW1 \ mL LPLL \ W\L
attested to and such, si ngul arl y, are post-evental si tuati ons , is the
treatingo|thattesti monypreci se| yasi |itwerea resi due o|thesi tu-
ation. Whatis Evi | i stotakethevoid,whi chi stheverybei ngo|the
situation,|orunformed.The|ormso|Evi l decl are substance|ul | and
l uminous, they expeleverymark o|thevoi d, they rusticate, deport,
chase o||, extermi nate those marks. uttheverdict o|Numbertel l s
us. itisinthi scl ai mto|ul l substance,i nthi spersecuti ono|theoccur-
rences o|the voi d, that res ides, preci sel y, thenegati ve. A contrario,
positivityassembl esandharboursthemarki ng o|thevoi dwi thi n its
|orms. And, this beingso, itaccords thought to being i nan i ntri nsi -
ca| | ysuperi or|ashi on.
Totakethevoi d|ora resi duei sa negativeoperati on,a detestab| e
' puri hcation' . Every true pol itics, i n hdel i ty to some popul ar event,
takesontheguardi anshi po|thevoi d~ o|thatwhichisunpresented,
notcounted, i nthe situation ~ as its highest duty i n thought and in
acti on. Everypoemseekstouncoverandtocarrytothe|ormal l i mits
o|languagethe latent void o|sensi bl ere|erents. Every sci encetreats
positively the resi due o| its own hi story, that whi ch has been l e|t
outside o|its |orm, because it knowsthatpreci sel ythere dwel l sthat
whichwi l | re|oundandre|ormul atei tssystemo|statements. Al l l ove
ultimate|yestabl i shes itse| |i nthe j oyo|theemptyspaceo|theTwo
o|thesexeswhichit|ounds,and|romthis pointo|viewtheromantic
idea o| a |ul l , |usi onal l ove, under the puri hed sign o|the One, is
preci sel ythe Evi l o|love.
Thenegative,as itsconceptisestabl i shedbyNumber,isapunctua|
di scord o| thought and o| bei ng. 'Negative' i s every enterprise o|
|ormation whi ch abandons, |ai l s to cheri sh, thi s uni que point upon
whose basi s there can be |orms and the un|ormed, |orms and resi -
dues, thepoi ntwhere being, i nthegui seo|theunpresented, assures
usthatwe donotthi nk i n vai n.
I6. 8. The symmetriccounterpart o|a Number
Notmuchneedstobedoneinorderto' negativise'aposi ti veNumber.
itsu|hcestoremove0|romits|orm. Numberteachesustheprecarity
o|the positive, its a-substanti al character. It is at the mercy o|the
trans|erofonesing|eointtotheresi due. And this point i sthemost
transparent o|a| l , that point that i s notsupported by anymulti ple-
presentation. the mark o|thevoi d.
Thi s i dea o|the trans|er o|a term |rom one | ocati on here, the
|ormtothe' opposite'l ocati on here,theresi due canbegeneral i sed.
Takea NumberN and the Number obtai ned by incertingtbeform
and tbe residue ofN. The resi due o| N is promoted into the |orm,
whilst al | the terms o| its |orm are demoted into the resi due. Thi s
Z \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
new Number operates, in the same ordinal~matter, a cut i nverse or
symmetrical to that whi ch dehnes N. We wi l l cal l thi s Number the
symmetriccounteqarto|N indicatinga symmetrywhosecentre,as
we shal l see, is Zero . We wi l l denote by -N, and read as ' mi nusN' ,
thesymmetric counterparto|N.
A Number and i ts symmetric counterpart can be presented as
|ol lows usi ngthe di agrams introduced i n 1 Z. 3} .
| [N) | [N)
*
NumDr N . B
H [N) H [N)

| [-N) | [-N)
+
NumDr-N . W
H [-N) H [-N)
It i s clear i nthe di agram that N i s positive 0 i s in its |orm and
that ~N, its symmetric counterpart, i s negati ve. Evidentl y, thi s wi l l
al waysbethecase. Conversely,whenNisnegative 0i si ni tsresi due ,
~N is positive 0i s in i ts|orm .
I |wetakethesymmetriccounterpart~No| N, thenthesymmetric
counterpart~-N o|~N, we arrive back atN. wehavechangedthe
|orm into the resi due, and then the resi due into the |orm. It i s that
old lawl earntintheschool room,whichspontaneousl yopposesitsel |
both to Hegel andto i ntui ti oni sm. two negati vi si ng operations take
us back tothe i ni ti al a|hrmati on. However, one must sti l l takecare,
as al ways, to note that~ -N i s not necessari l y a positive Number.
I| the starting Number N is negative, its symmetric counterpart is
positive,andthesymmetriccounterparto|itssymmetriccounterpart
~ whi ch is itsel |~ is onceagai nnegative. Thesign '-' is nota sign o|
negati on butoneo|symmetry. Whi chconhrms |or usthatthenega-
tive unl i kethe symmetrical is notan operati onal di mensi on. |tis a
structural predicate o| the being o| Number.
I6. 9. A |ewexampl es.
Whati sthesymmetriccounterparto|theposi ti veNumbcr( , ( O ?
I t i sthe Number ( , ( ~ 0 , whose |orm i s al l o| except |or O.
It i s obvi ousl ynegative.
Whatisthesymmetriccounterparto|thenegativeNumber( 2, ! ,
whose |orm is thesi ngleton o| ! ? |t i sthepositive Number 2, 0 ,
whose|orm i s the si ngleton o| 0 . |n |act,theonl y elements o|the
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L J
ordi na| 2 are 0 and I. In the |ormercase, 0 constitutes the resi due,
inthe | atter,the |orm.
Takea positive NumberN anditssymmetriccounterpart ~N. To
every Number si tuated ' between' Zero and N we can make corre-
spond a Number situated ' between' ~N and Zero. we j ust take its
symmetric counterpart. In |act, it is clear that, where it i s the case
that Zero < N, < N, it is also the case that ~N < ~N, < Zero. Thi s
can beverihed by exami ni ngal | possi b| ecaseso|i nequa| ity between
N, and N ( see I 3. I J , remembering that ~N swaps the |orm and
residueo|N.
Therearethus' asmany' Numbersbetween~N andZeroasthere
are betweenZeroandN, becausethe|unctionj( N, ~N, is a bi uni -
voca|correspondence between thetwo' sl ices' o|Numbers . uttake
care! The correspondence i s not between two sets. The i nterval
between Zero and N is nota consi stent total i ty any more than the
entire domain o|Numbers i s. Thi scan easi | y be proved. taki ng, |or
examp|e, the Number( 2, ( 0 , we knowthata|| Numbers o|thetype
( W, ( O , whereWi sanyordi na| whatsoever| argerthan2, aresma| | er
than ( 2, ( 0 . It i s the law that we di scovered in I J. I6. i |the |orm
staysthesameandthematterisincreased,theNumbergetssma| | er.
Meanwhi |e,a| l Numbers( W, ( O areposi tive,since0i si nthei r|orm.
Sothereare ' asmany' o|thesepositiveNumbers~ thati s, thosesi tu-
ated between Zeroand ( 2, ( 0 ~ as there areordi na| s| arger than 2.
utweknow|or sure that' a| | ordi na| s| argerthan2' is an i nconsi s-
tent mul ti p| icity.
Keepingthi si nmi nd,wecana| l owourselvestovi sual isesymmetry
inthe|o| | owi ngway,theaxisbeingthato|Numberstakenaccording
to thei rorder.
W
-N
W W W W
N
Thisj ustihes ourspeaki ngo|a symmetry whosecentre is Zero.
I6. I O. Jhc ordnaIs
Weannouncedalongtimeago( see|orexamp|e8. 8 thattheordi nal s,
whi chconstitute the stu|| o|the bei ngo|Numbers, can a| sothem-
se|ves be represented as Numbers. What do the Numbers that
representordi na| s |ook | i ke?
Let' sconsi derthe Number(W,W , whosematter is theordi na| W
and whose |orm retai ns a|| o| thi s matter. In other words, thi s is a
case o| a maxi ma| numerica| secti on, or o| exhi biting ~ as certai n
contemporary artists have done ~ the raw materi a| al one as the
4 \W1\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
' work' . The mostinterestingthi ngis tocomparethe Number W,W
with the Number W, O , whose |orm i s voi d. In both cases, we |eel
that the act is somehow nul l . ut the two nul l i ties are di stinct. The
Number W, W treatstbeubo|eojtbematterasajorm,whereasthe
Number W,Odoesnotinscribeanyjorm intbematter.Thei mmedi -
ateresul tisthat W,W ,|oranyWotherthan0, i sapositiveNumber,
whereas W,O is a negativeNumber rememberingthat 0 isnot an
element o|0, andthatthere|ore 0 i s not i nthe |orm o| W, O . We
di scern a certain posi ti vi ty in the hrst gesture which designates the
matter as |orm, whereas the second, overwhelmed by the matter, is
unabl eto designate anythingwhatsoever.
ut i | W, W is treated as a posi ti ve production, the assumption
o|amatteras|orm, itremai nsneverthelessa|actthatthi sproduction
repeatstheordi nal~matter. This redoubl i ngo|theordinal asmatter,
then as |orm |egi ti mates our treating Numbers o|the |orm W,W
as theNumeri cal representatives o|the ordi nal s.
Wewi l l there|oresaythe|ol l owi ng. Anordina| wisresentedas
Numberin tbeform ( w,w); tbatis, tbe Numberubosematteris w
and ubose jorm is w. Thi s presentation is the ordi nal ' itsel|', but
tbougbtas Number.
I 6. I I . To be sure that this i s the ordi nal ' itsel |' , we must expl icitly
prove that the order o|Numbers respectsthe order o|the ordi nal s,
whi ch i s bel ongi ng. I n other words, that i |it i s the case~ ordi nal s
bei ngthought i n thei r own domai n ~ that W, W, then it i s al so
the case ~ ordi nal s being thought as Numbers ~ that WW <
W ,W .
Thi s i s obvi ousl y the case. ecause the di scri mi nant o| WWj
and W,W i snecessari l ythesmal lestordi nal to belongtoW, and
nottoW,ortobelongtoWandnottoW, .I|W W, thissmal lest
ordi nal i s preci sel y W which belongs to W but cannot belong to
itsel |. Now W, i soutsi dethe mattero| WWj, and it is in the|orm
W o| W_,W . So it is i ndeed the casethat WWj< W,W .
Thustheordero| theordi nal sthoughtasNumbers,i nthe |ormal
redoub| ingo|theirmateri al being,i sthesameastheordero|ordi nal s
thought in thei r bei ng, as transitive sets al l o| whose elements are
transi ti ve. The Numeri cal representation o| the ordi nal s is structur-
al ly i somorphi ctotheordi na| s. This beingso, thereisnoreasonwhy
we shoul d notconsi der that the ordi nal s ' tbemsc|ces' are i nscri bed,
identical l yrepresented, in the order o|Numbers.
I6. I2. |romthe|actthatanordi nal i saNumbero|the|orm W,W ,
threeconsequencescan bedrawn.
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 5
I Every sub-Number o| an ordi nal is an ordi nal . |or, i| W, W is
anordi nal , a sub-Numberi so|the|orm uu, where u, W.
It isthere|ore the ordi nal u, .
2 All these sub-Numbers wi l l mani |estly be ordi nal s smal l er than
the i niti al ordi nal . |t |ol l ows that they are a|| i n the l ow set o|
the i ni ti al ordi nal , and that the high set, general l y composed o|
sub-Numbers l arger than the Number, i s empty here. Thi s i s a
characteristic property o| ordi nal s thought as Numbers. Cener-
al l y speaking, a sub-Number o| the high set i s a sub-Number
N/u, such that u i s i n the residue o| N. ut, i n the case o|
an ordi nal and thi s coul d be a dehnition o| the ordi nal s , tbe
residue is emty. The high set o| an ordi nal is there|ore al so
empty, and, conversely, i | the high set o| a Number is empty,
then its resi due i s empty. its |orm coi nci des with i ts matter, it
is an ordi nal . The canonical presentation o| an ordinal wi l l
there|ore be o| the |orm Lo( W/O. ut what i s more, as the
low set has |or its elements a|| ordi nal s smal ler than W, it is,
as a set, identical to W ( every ordi nal is the set o| all the
ordinals smal lerthan it, . Z} . Fi nal l y, thecanoni cal representa-
tion ~ most di stinctive ~ o| an ordinal W thought as Number
is si mpl y W/O.
3 The symmetric counterpart o| an ordi nal W, W is obtai ned by
swapping the resi due and the |orm. Now, the residue is empty.
So it i s the voi d that wi l l be substituted |or the 'total ' |orm
that i s W. the symmetric counterpart o| W, W i s the Number
W,O . Thoughtas Number,an ordi nal W al lowso|a symmetric
counterpart, so we can |reely speak o| the Number ~W.
Iti sclearthatevery ordinal apart |romd i sa positiveNumber,si nce
its |orm, W, contai ns d as an element. The symmetric counterpart
o|everyordi nal otherthanthevoi d is there|ore a negative Number,
ascan be seen di rectly i nwriting ( W, O . |t will be |ound, moreover,
that all the properties o|an ordi nal W are i nverted by the passage
to -W. So that now every sub-Number o| ~W is the symmetric
counterpart -u, o|an ordi nal u, smal l erthanW, and it i sthe low
set o|~W that is void, si nce ~ the |orm o|~W being voi d ~ every
sub-Numbero|~W i sl argerthan it, and, hnal l y, the high set o|~W
i s identical to -W, with the resul t that the canoni cal representation
i s. O/~W.
Wearethereby assured that ordi nal s are Numbers.

ut what i s
more,graspedintermso|Numerical i ty,theordi nal saresymmetrici s-
able. we have opened up on the other side o|Zero whi ch is the
ordi nal 0, thought as Number an i mmense space where wi l l be
\W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, 1TLb
i nscri bed those |ormer|y unthi nkabl e entities. natura| mu|ti p| icities
submittedtothenegative. Numerica|ityi scapab|e o|symmetricising
nature.
I 6. I J. Posi ti ve andnegati vewhol enumbers
The natura| whole numbers, thought i n their being, are none other
than the hni te ordi na| s, which is to say the e|ements o| the hrst
| i mi tordina| . ln |actwe have a| ready given their dehnition anddi s-
cussedthei roperati onal di mensi ons in chapter ! ! .
Thi sprecedingworkal readysettlesthequestion,then. thoughtas
Numbers, natura|ubo|e numbers are ojtbe tye n, n , ubere n is a
nite ordina|. Evident|y, they are al l positive. The order o| natural
who|e numbers qua Numbers coi nci des with the order o| natural
whole numbers thatweal readyknow,theorderaccordi ngtowhich
every schoo| boy says that n is | arger than . |or we know that, i |
e n whi ch i s the ontol ogi cal versi on o|traditiona| order~ then
, < n, n intheordero|Numbers. Wethere|ore havetherightto
write the Number W, W as W, to i ndicate that an ordi nal ' itsel |' is
being i nscri bed i n the domai n o| Numbers. We there|ore write a
natura| who| enumber,thought as Number, as n.
Thesub- Numbers o|a natura| who| e Numberarethehnite ordi-
nalssmallerthanit,there|orethenatura| who| enumberssma| | erthan
i t. I| n is this Number, these wi|l be natural who| e Numbers
0,0; , ! , ! , . . . , n - , n ~ ! , whi ch we cou| d also write as
0, ! , . . . , n~ ! . Takentogether,they|ormthe|owseto|n. Thehigh
set o| n i s empty, and the canoni cal representation o| a wholc n,
thought as Number, is 0, ! , . . . ,n - ! /0. Si nce n' s e|ements are
preci se| y0, ! , . . . ,n- ! , thel owsetwhosee|ements theyarecan be
written as n/0. , Na Thi s is notci rcu| ar, because,consideredas a set,
n does not contai n itse| |as an e| ement .
Thesymmetriccounterparto|anatural who| enumberisaNumber
o|thc |orm n, 0 , where n i sa hnite ordi na| . Wewri te it-n,wesay
' mi nus n' . We posit thata Numberis a ubo|enegatice Numberifit
is tbesymmetriccounterartojanatura|ubo|eNumber, tbatis,one
ubicb takes tbe jorm (n, 0) . The sub-Numbers o|a negative whole
number -n are all the whole numbers g where e n. Taken
together,they |orm the high set o|-n, whose | owset i sempty. The
canoni cal representati on o| a negati ve who| e Number is there|ore
u| ti mate|y written as 0/-n.
Inordertoconhrmthecomp| eteidentityo|thetraditionalpositive
andnegative who| enumbers and o|thepositi ve andnegativewhole
Numbers, it must obvi ousl y be the case that operations on these
Numbers coi nci de, as order did, with operations on numbers. l||or
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 7
examplewedehne an addi ti on N + N on Numbers,thentheres u|t
o|thi soperation in the specihccaseo|whol eNumbers, hence in the
caseo|anaddi ti ono|thetypem + n, shoul dbe 'the sameNumber'
as the whole number whi ch, i n the ca| cul ati ons o| our schoo| days,
corresponded to the addi ti on o| these two who|e numbers. These
operati onal verihcations wi l | becarried out i nchapter I8.
So |ar as the inscription wi thi n the Numbers o| natural who| e
numbers thought i ntheir being i sconcerned, ourtask i scomplete.
I6. I4. Uyadc postvc ratonaI numbcrs
We haveal readyspokeno|rati onal numbersin re|ationtoDedeki nd
cuts compare I 5. 5 . aposi ti ve or nul l rati onal numberisa |racti on
or relation o|two natural whol e numbers, which i sto saya pai r
(,q)o|wholenumbers. Thehrsti scal ledthenumerator,thesecond
thedenominator. Thenumeratorcan be null i denti cal totheempty
set , butit is prohi bited |or thedenomi natorto be 0 we know that
therel ati on [ i s ' undetermi ned' .
We have nodesi re here t oenter into a rigorous introduction to
thesetradi ti onal numbers in |act,herewemustconsider|racti onsas
i rreduci ble,impossi bl etosi mpl i |y . The intuitive ideao|the|raction
wi l l su|hce |or us.
Itisevidentthatthenatura| whol enumbersareasubseto|rational
positiveornul l numbers,wej ustneedtotakea rati ona| inthe|orm
| to obtain n. In other words. a whole number i s a rati onal o|the
type(n, I ).
The cl assi cal order o| the rational s hasthe |undamental property
o|beinga denseorder. Inotherwords see I 5. 5 , giventworati onal s
and suchthat < , however' near' thesetwonumbersmight
be,there a|ways exi sts a tLird and,|romthere, an i nhnity o|them
whichcomesbetweenthetwoi ni ti a| numbers. therei sa suchthat
- < - < -

V| V! V
;
-
A dyadic rationa| number is a number o| the |orm whose
denominator i s a power o|2. Or, in our pai red versi on, a rati onal
number(,2).
Dyadic rati ona| numbers themselves |orm a dense subset o|the
rational s. i |r, andr, are rati ona|ssuch thatr, <r,, a dyadic rati ona|
canalways be interca| ated betweenthem.
Thei mportantthi ng|or us is thatevery sequence o|augmenti ng
rationals r, <r, 5 . . . <r <. . . can be ' repl aced' by a sequence o|
dyadicrationa| sd, <. . . <d<. . . .takethedyadicrati ona| ssi tuated
' between' r, andr,,thenr,andr

,etc.Wecanalsosaythatthedyadic
rationals|orma ' basi s' |or a|ltherational s. Morespeci hca| l y, a non-
dyadic rati onal number can be ' approached' as cl osel y as you l i ke
8 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
|romadyadicone,becauseyoucanal ways| odgeadyadici n-between
r andr+ r

, however smal l r

might be.
I 6. I 5. We have, then, the |o| l owing statement, perhaps the most
i mportanti ntheprocesso|therepresentationo| traditional numbers
as ( ontological Numbers.
cery dyadic rationa|numbercanbe representedasa Numberof
nitematter,andeceryNumberoj nitematterreresentsadyadic
rationa|number.
I 6. I 6. How, in general , is a Numbero|hni te matter presented? | n
t he |orm n , p ,p, . . p } } , where t he whol e numbers p , p, etc.
whi chmakeup its |ormarewhol enumberssmal l erthann,thematter
o|the Number. Si nce we are keeping to rational positive numbers,
wewi l l consi derhere only Numberso|positive hnitematter,thatis,
Numberswhich have d i n their |orm.
The subtle i dea that gui des the ' proj ecti on' o|these Numbers o|
hnitematterintothedyadicposi ti veornullrati onal sisthe|ol l owing.
Letn bethe matter o|theNumber. We take a|l theelements o|this
matter i n order, |romd to n ! , which isthe l argestwho|enumber
contained inn. Inso|araswestayinthe| ocationo|thehrstelement,
d which is the |orm, si nce the Number i s positive ~ we attri bute
theval ue! tothewholenumberi nquestion. Saythatwecomeacross
the hrst el ement o|n say notto have the same location as 0,
in other words the smal lest whol e number i n the matter o| the
Numberto be i nthe resi due. We attri bute to thi swhol enumberthe
va|ue

] e A|ter this, we general l y attribute to whole numbers g

whi ch|o| | owtheval ue i|theyare in the|orm, theva| ue -
i |they are i nthe resi due.
|i na| | y, the val ue o|the l ast termbeyond bei ngsti l | thehrst
term whi ch does not have the same l ocation as 0, i | it exists , the
val ue attri butedto n ! , then, wi l | be , with orwithoutthesign
dependi ngon whether n ! is i nthe resi dueori n the |orm.
Or, once agai n. a belongingtothe resi due wi l l a|ways be a||ected
bythesi gn~. |ntraversi nginorderal l theel ementsg o|n, inso|aras
one remai nswi thi nthe |orm, whi chi sthel ocationo|0,each element
iscounted |or ! , |or a whol eval ue. As soon asthe |ocation changes,
wecount theelements|or a dyadic rati onal o|the|orm , , where
is thehrst|orwhichthe|ocationchanges,|romnowonaddingthe
sign~ wheneverthi s|ocationi stheresi due.
|i nal | y, we associ ate with the i ni ti al Number o|hnite matterthe
rati onal number obtai ned |rom the sum i n the usual sense o| al l
W\LLLbb LWL mPW1LW1 \ mL LPLL \ W\L
the valuesthusattri butedtotheelements o| n. Thi srati onal number
is dyadi c, si nce al l the denomi nators i n question are dyadi c, and
si nce ~ as every schoo|chi l d knows ~ to add |ractions, onetakes as
denominator the sma| |est common mu| ti pl e o| the denomi nators.
Now, the smal |est common mu|tip|e o| powers o|two i s a power
o| two.
I6. I 7. Let' s gi ve an exampl e o| the procedure. Take the Number
( 5, 0, ! ,3 , whose hnite matter i s the ordi na| 5 and whose |orm
contai ns0, ! and 3. The resi due i s thus composed o|Z ando|4.
Si nced i s i nthe|orm, wegive ittheval ue ! .
Since ! i s al so i nthe |orm, wegive itthe val ue ! .
The |ocation changes with Z, which is i n the resi due. We gi ve it
the va| ue
=
]
3 h | h
[

is in t e orm, wegi ve it t e vaue _1-1 - |

=
_) "
4 is in the resi due, we give it the va| ue

2-
l
=

.
So, in theend,therati onal numbercorrespondi ngto theNumber
5, 0, ! ,3 wi l l beobtained |romthesum.
! ! ! ! 3
! + ! - - + - - - = -
Z Z
;
Z' Z'
Wecanseeverywe| | thatthi s is indeed a dyadi crationa| .
I6. I 8. |n order bettertoexhi bi ttheconstruction o|thi scorrespon-
dence, which bears wi tness to an i somorphy, an identity o| bei ng,
between positive Numberso|hnitematterandposi ti vedyadicrati o-
nal s, wewi l l |orma| i sethi ngsa l ittl e. Wewi | l thenseecl earl ythatwe
are dea| i ngwith an i nductive dehni ti on, a dehni ti on by recurrence.
Take a positive Number o|hni tematter. We wil| dehne by recur-
rencethe|o| lowing|unctionj, dehnedonthee|ements o|thematter
n o|the Number.
KU 1 . j 0 = ! .
K L Z . j + ! = ! , i |j = ! |or al l whol enumbers uptoand
including, and i | + ! i s i nthe |orm o|theNumber.
K U J. j+ ! = -| i |a| l thewhol enumbersuptoandi ncl ud-
ing are i nthe |orm andp + ! i s i n the resi due.
K L 1. j + ! =
_
l
i| the va| ue o| is _ or _
[
_ and + !
is in the |orm.
70 \W\L\LT. LL | W| | \W, \LL, L\b, Tcb
KL J. f - ! - i| the val ue o| is or - and -
i is in the resi due.
Theserul eswi l l al lowustocal cul atetherati onal val ueo|j|oral l
theel ements o|n, thematter o|the i ni ti al Number. Usi ngRa N to
denote the dyadi c rati onal that corresponds to N, we then posit
that.
Ra N j 0 -j ! -. . . -f n- !
The sign -i ndicates here the algebrai c sum i nthenormal sense.
It i s clearthat Ra N i s a dyadic rati onal .
I6. I9. Let' s proceed with the cal culation o| another exampl e, the
Number 4, 0, I , 3 , which is, o|course, a positive Numbero|hnite
matter.
So.
j 0 ! by rul e ! .
j ! ! by rul e i , .
j Z} ` by rul e3, Z is in the residue .
Z
i i
3 ~ - - rul e4,

3 i s i n the |orm .

Z
. .
~
Z
_
Ra 4, 0, ! , 3 j 0 -j ! j Z} -j 3 .
! !
Ra 4, 0, ! , 3 i - i - _- _.
Ra 4, 0, ! , 3))) g whi ch is a dyadi c rati onal , as we sai d it
woul d be.
Z
I 6. 2O. VhoIc ordnaI part ol a ^umbcr
It might appearstrange peremptori l yto changethe procedure when
we get to the hrst whole that doesn' t have the same location as
d i n the Number o| hnite matter under consi deration. Conshor
real ises thi s. ' The whole idea o| a shi |t |rom ordi nary counti ng to
a bi nary deci mal computation at the hrst change in sign may seem
unnatural at hrst. However, such phenomena seem i nevi tabl e in a
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 7
su|hcient|y rich system. `

Thi s expl anation o| Conshor' s ~ more o|

an apology, real l y ~ i s a l ittle qui ck.
Tohndthetrueunderlyingconcept,weshoul daskwhati sactual l y
represented by the hrst consecutive ordi na| s o| a Number N o|
hnite matter whi ch have the same location as the i ni ti al term O.
Assume once more the posi ti ve case 0 l ocated in the |orm . I|we
partition N at point the hrst ordi nal , i n theordero|ordi nal s, to
change location , we obtain the sub-Number N/ a|| ofubose e|e-
ments bacetbesame|ocationas 0. |tiscl earthat,si ncethi sl ocati on
isthe|orm,N/p i sthewhol eposi ti ve Numberp, thati s, theNumber
whosematter i sp andwhose |orm is made upo|theelements o|.
The |unction fwi l l attri bute theval ue ! to al l these elements, and
thesumo|theval ues ! -! -. . . wi l l gi vethe' cl assi c' whol enumber
. Whi ch, we can add i mmediately, i s an algebrai c sum o| dyadic
rati onal so|thetype or ~

,whereg i snomorethan! . It|ol l ows

that RaN will be te sum o| the whole and a negative dyadic
|ractionbetween~! and 0 at least, unless it happens to be a whol e
number . Fi nal l y, i s a type o| ubo|e arto|the positive rati ona|
Ra N , that i s, the natural whol e number closest to Ra N ' |rom
above' . ~ ! < Ra N < .
From the point o|view o|Number, in |act, i s the l argest sub-
Numbero|N to |e an ordina|, si nce ' bei ng an ordi nal ' meanspre-
ci sel ybei ng a Number al l o|whose matter i s i n its |orm. That the
locationchanges atpoi nt i si nthe resi due means preci sel ythat
N/-! i sno|ongeranordi nal ei ther, since, anel emento|itsmatter,
is i n the resi due. |t i s there|ore even more htting to say that i s a
' whole part' o| N. y whi ch we mean. the largest whol e number
belongingto the matter o| N and such that the sub-NumberN/ is
theordinal. Orevenmore simply. thewhol eparto|N isthel argest
ordi nal to be a sub-Numbero|N.
Now the procedure becomes cl earer. i t works rst|y by maki ng
correspond, vi a j, the elements o| the whol e part o| N and the
whole part ' |rom above' o|the dyadic rational Ra N . The ! val ues
are used to do thi s. And tben it is a question o| ca| culating the
remainder, whi ch is less than 0, but more than ~! , and to do thi s
we use dyadi c |ractions o| the type or - , g i ndi cati ng the
rank o| the ordi na| i n question beyond tbe ubo|e art p. There
is no ' unnatural ' mystery in al | o| thi s, but rather a pro|ound
logic.
I6. 2I . Wecangeneral isetheseremarks. Civena posi ti ve NumberN
o|matterW,wewi l l cal l ubo|eordina|arto|N the l argestordi nal
u, W suchthatthesub-NumberN/u, istheordi nal u .
7Z \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
The attentivereaderwi l l ba|katthi s. how canwe speak so|reely
o|the' l argestordi nal ' tosati s|y a property? Doesn'ttheexistenceo|
l i mit ordi nal s mi l itate agai nst any such cl ai m? Where ordi nal s are
concerned, onl y mi ni mal ity is at work.
Theremarki swel l taken. Wewi l l haveto re|ormul ate ourdehni -
ti on, then,andposi tthe|ol l owi ng. Tbeubo|eordina|partofaposi-
ticeNumberis tbesma||estordina||ocatedin tbe residue. Since the
Number is positive, 0 is located i n the |orm. The smal lest ordi nal
l ocatedi ntheresi due i sthusindeedthehrstordi nal , i ntheascending
order o| the ordinal s o| the matter o| N, al l o| whose elements are
in the |orm, although it itsel | is in the resi due. These el ements con-
stitutethe wholeordi nal part o|N. Herei sa casewhere ' thel argest'
transl ates as ' the smal lest' .
| |u, i sthewhol eordi nal part o|a posi ti veNumberN then, j ust
as in the abovecase,N < u si nce the sub-Numberu, is, considered
as an element o|the matter o|N, in the residue o|N, whereas it is
outside its own matter.
Itcanal sobesai dthatthewholeordi nal parto|apositiveNumber
is i nthe high set o|thatNumber.
I|u, i s a successor ordi nal , once agai n we hnd the ' |raming'

o|
the endpoi nt. Let u be the predecessoro|u, , thi sgives u, S u .
Si nce u, is the sma||est ordi nal t obe i n the residue, its predecessor
u must be in the |orm. O|course, si nce all the el ements o|u are
el ements o| u, transi ti vity o| ordinal s , and al l the elements o| u,
arei nthe|orm,al l theelementso| u aretoo,s oN/ui s theordi nal
u . And, gi venthatthi s ordi nal i soutsi de i tsown matterandinthe
|orm o|N, then u < N, and so hnal l yu < N < S u u, . This is
the i nterval we are l ooki ng|or.
I|, ontheotherhand, u, isa l i mitordinal, it willcertai nl yalways
be thecasethatN < u, , butwe woul dsearch in vai n |or the l argest
ordi nal smal lerthan N, because on the other side o|u, there is no
' predecessor' . N woul dthenhave asi ngul arposi ti on. smal lerthana
l i mi t ordi nal , it uou|d |e |arger tban a|| tbe ordina|s sma||er tban
tbis |imit ordina|. |t woul d come to insert itsel| in that space we
thoughtwas' hl ledi n' bythe ordi nal sthatprecedethe l i mit,the space
' between' a l i mi t ordi nal and the i nhnity o| successor ordi nal s o|
whi ch it is the l i mi t.
I 6. 22. Let' sgi veanexampl e. TaketheNumberN S , S ,
whose matter i s the successor o| and whose |orm is al l o|that
matter except |or itsel |, whi ch is the only element o|the residue.
The l i mit ordi nal m beingthe hrst ordi nal i n the mattero|N to be
in its resi due, is thewhol eordi nal parto| N. |tis i ndeedthecasethat
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 7J
N< , sincethei rdi scri mi nantis which is in theresi dueo|N and
outsi dethemattero|. Whati smore, |oreverye| emento| - that
i s, |oreverynaturalwhole numbern - iti sthecasethatn < N, si nce
n i soutsidethe mattero|n andi nthe|orm o|N. TheNumberN is
thusatoncesmal l erthanthehrst |imit ordi nal andl argerthanal l
thenatural whol e numbers n o|which isthel i mi t! Thi sshowsto
what extentthedomai n o|Numbers saturates thato|theordi nal s,
whi ch i t contai ns. there are ' many more' Numbers than there are
ordi nal s.
Wecanal sosaythatNi s' i nhnite|ynear' to |arnearerthaneven
the most immense o| the who|e numbers could be. This notion o|
' inhnite proxi mity' iso|a prodi gi ousphi l osophi cal i nterest. Itopens
upnewspaces|orexpl orati onintheendl esski ngdomo|Number. We
shal | undertaketheseexplorationsa l ittle later.
I6. 2J. 5cqucncc and cnd ol thc dyadc ratonaIs
We have at our disposal a |unction Ra N whi ch makes a dyadic
rational correspond to every Number o| hni te matter. The who| e
numbers are incl uded i n thi s correspondence, because the positive
wholenumbern thoughto|asNumberwillcorrespond,throughthe
|unction a, to the sum i+ i+. . . + i n times~ that isexactl ythe
Numbern, since,i |a Numberi sa natural whol enumber,thena||o|
its sub-Numbers are in its |orm. It would be betterto say that the
|unction Raassoci atesa dyadicrati onal witheveryNumbero|hnite
matter~ even i |this Numberi swhol e.
To complete the work, and toconcl udethatthedyadi c rati onal s
'themsel ves' are represented i nNumbers,we must.

conhrmthattheorder o| Numbers o| hnite matter is i somorphi c

with the customary order o|correspondi ng dyadi c rati onal s, so
that, i |N

< N in theordero|Numbers,then Ra Nj < Ra N,

in the normal ordero|rationa| s, thi samusi ngmathemati cal exer-
cisei ssketched nicely i nthe note,
-

provethata|| the dyadicrati onal sare obtai nedthrough the |unc-

tionRaappl iedto Numberso|hnite matter,thi scomes downto
provingthateverypositivedyadic rati onal canbeputi nthe|orm
o|the algebraic sum o|a certai n whole number its whole part
' |romabove' anddyadicrational so|the|orm or - ,because,
oncethi si sdone,onecanreassembl etheNumberN, whosevalue
|orRa is therati onal thusdismembered, `

prove that the operationa| di mensi ons o| the rati onal s ~ addi -
ti on, mul ti pl ication,di vi si on, in brie|, everythi ngthatgi vesthem
the al gebrai c structure o| a he| d, are i somorphic to the same
74 \W\L\LT! LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
operati ons dehned |or Numbers and appl ied to Numbers o|
hnite matter, thi s relates to the exami nati ons made in chapter
! 8, with oneobvi ousexcepti on. i n orderto have negaticedyadic
rati onal s, the procedure o| symmetricisation woul d be used,
which dehnes the general manner o| passage to the negative.
i nversi on o|swappi ng |orm and resi due. O|course, we will sti l l
be deal i ng with a Number o| hnite matter but thi s time with
d in the resi due .
As |ar as the ontol ogical si de o| thi ngs i s concerned, we have
attai ned ourgoal . A dyadi c rational , thought i n its bei ng, inscri bed
as Number, has a very si mpl ei ntri nsic dehni ti on. its matterishni te.
As |ar asbei ngi sconcerned,that, thi scl ari hes howeverdensethe
rati onal smightbe,eventothepoi nto|ani nhniteswarmi ng between
two consecutive whol e numbers, they nevertheless belong to the
hnite. The numeri cal ontology o| the i nhnite begi ns with real
Numbers.
I 6. 24. eal numbers
We know that real numbers provide the model |or the geometrical
' conti nuum' . thei r hgure i s that o| the poi nts OI a l i ne. |t i s the
real numbers that have subtended the enti re edihce o| anal ysi s,
cbef-d'oeucre and keystone o| modern mathemati ca| thought,
si nce Newton and Lei bni z.
For a long ti me, the continuum and the |unctions corresponding
toitwerethoughteitheri ntermso|geometrical constructions Creek
and pre-cl assi cal age , orin a pri miti ve and pragmatic|ashi on eigh-
teenthandni neteenthcenturies . Theemergenceo|arigorousconcept
o| reals as entities with whi ch one can cal cul ate took pl ace slowly
duringthecourseo|theni neteenth century, begi nni ng with Cauchy,
andwi th Dedeki ndrepresenting a deci si ve step.
ecause it i s the cl osest to that whi ch governs the dehnition o|
real s in the hel d o|Numbers, we will recal l brieHy the construction
o|real numbers by means o|'cuts' , as i nvented by Dedeki nd.
I6. 25. Wewi l l begi n wi thdyadi crati onal s, whi chwe can usehere
i n pl ace o| rati onal s as such, in view o|the remark made in I6. I4.
Taketwosetso|dyadic rati onal sandAsuchthateveryrational i n
is smal l ert hanevery rati onal i nA. Wecansayboth thathasno
internal maxi mum |orevery dyadi c rati onal i nt hesetthere i san
r, i nthesetsuch that r, < r, , and that A hasno i nternal mi ni mum.
Supposenowthatthe|ol l owingrel ati onholdsbetweenandA. there
al ways exists a dyadic in that is ' ascl ose' as one l i kesto a dyadic
W\LLLbb LWL mPWLW \ mL LPLL \ W\L 75
o|A. |n otherwords, i| r, is a dyadi c in A andra dyadi cas sma||as
one |ikes, there wi l l always exist a r, in such that the di ||erence
betweenr, and r, i s less than r.
Thesituationcanbevi sual isedasbelow,byrepresentingthedyadic
rationals as points on a l i ne.

W
t e
W W
< t
A
W
t e A
Wecanseecl earl ythat ' ri ses' wi thouteverentering i ntoA,that
A 'descends' withoutenteringi nto , andthatthere|orethetwosets
are asclosetoeach otherascan be, wi thoutever ' touchi ng' .
Thus did Dedeki nd dene a real number as tbe poi nt si tuated
exactly' between' andA, thati s, theelement,createdi nthisprocess,
which is si multaneousl y l arger than any element o| and smal ler
than anyelement o|A. We can identi|y thi selement as the poi nto|
thecuto| andA.
|tischaracteristico|thi smethodthatittreatsthecutnotasastate
o| things i n a pre-given uni verse which is how we treated i t |or
Numbers, see I 5. 6 , but as a procedure, dehni ng a mathemati ca|
entitythatdoesnotpre-exi stthi sprocedure. Tobeginwi th, thereare
only rati onal s. And, i| the cut is not a rati ona| it coul d be, i| the
upper |imit o| andthe l ower | i mit o|A coincided , then itconsti -
tutes i n itsel |the name, or |orm o|presentati on, o|a ' bei ng' whi ch
inexi sts in the hel d o|rational s. There|ore the real s are operati ona|
productionshere, theysign,comi ng|orth |romnon-being,thehctive
pointwhere andA are touched bythe interposi ti on between them
o|thi shcti on. Intothatplace,where there was nothing butthemin-
iscu|evoidthatseparatestwosetsascloseascanbe, comesthereal ,
which stops upthi svoi dbyrea|isinga cutas number.
I 6. 26. Fictions have no place i n the ontological conception o|
Number. | |the cl assic real numbers,thosewhi ch real ise cuts i n the
dyadicrati onal s, i nscri bethemselves i nthedomai no|Numbers,itis
because they exist and are di sti ngui shed by some property. They
cannot irrupt |rom inexi stence, i n the |orm o| mere names o| a
lacuna. According to an ontological conception o| Numbers, every
Number is, none resu|ts or is reso|ved i nthe name o|an operati on.
Wedobattle here againsta domi nantnomi nal i sm, andwe do so in
theheld o|number,socommon| ytaken |or an operati onal hction.
7 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
I 6. 27. In |act, our dehnition o| real numbers as Numbers is quite
l i mpi d.
A Numoer is a rea| number ifitis eitber ofnite matter or of
matter , and ifits form and its residueare innite.
In what |ol l ows we wi l l substanti ate thi s dehni ti on, whi ch repre-
sents real numbers ' themsel ves' in the domai n o|Numbers.
I6. 28. The' proj ecti on' o|thi sdehni ti onintotheconcepto|real sas
cuts i s basi cal l yvery si mpl e.
l|aNumberiso|hnitematter,theniti s, aswehaveseen, adyadic
rati ona| .
l| a Number i s o| matter , then a| | o|i ts sub-Numbers are o|
lesser matter than , and there|ore o| hnite matter, si nce is the
smal lest i nhnite ordinal . So all o|its sub-Numbers are dyadicratio-
nal s. More speci hcal l y, its l owset and its highsetaresetso|dyadic
rati onal s. And, since every Number i s the cut o|its low set and its
high set,a Numbero|mattercanberepresentedasthecuto|two
sets o| dyadic rati onal s. Or, once agai n, a real number thought as
Number i s a Number whose canonical presentation Lo Ni N is
made sol el y |rom dyadic rational s.
Fi nal l y, i | a Number o| matter has an i nhni te |orm and an
i nhnite resi due, we avoi d i ts l ow set and high set havi ng interna|
maxi ma. ecause, i | the |orm o| N i s hni te, since it i s composed
o|whol enumbers thematterbeing ,itadmitso|al argestelement,
say the whol e number . The cut o| N at point dehnes the sub-
Number N/, which i s obvi ousl y the l argest sub-Number whose
di scri mi nant with N is in the |orm o| N, and there|ore the l argest
sub-Number i n the low set o|N. And, i| the resi due is hnite, there
exi sts a number such that N/ is the smal lest element o| the hi gh
seto|N. A corttrario, i |both the |orm and resi dueo|N are i nhnite
~ are sequences o| whol e numbers wi thout i nternal maxi ma ~ then
the low set does not have a maxi mum term, nor the high set a
mi ni mum term.
Wethushndourselvespreciselyi ntheconditionso|theDedekind
cut. di sj oi nt ascending and descending sets o|dyadic rati onal swith
no maxi mum or mi ni mum. Except that ubat ue cbaracterise as
'rea|s ' are articu|ar, a|ready existing Numbers, whereas Dedekind
i nstal l s them as a hcti on at the voi d point o| a cut. For us, a real
wi l l be that uni que Number of minimum matter situated exactly
between two sets o|dyadi c rati onal s whi ch can be shown to be its
|ow set and its high set, and there|ore to be sets o| sub-Numbers.
W\LLLbb LWLmPWLW1 \ mL LPLL \ W\L 77
|t is parti cul arl y reassuri ng to remark that, in the dehni ti on o|
real sasNumbers,everythi ngremai nsi mmanent. Dedeki ndcutsdes-
ignatethehctiono|a numberexternal totwosequenceso|rati onal s,
as the poi nt o| contact o| these sequences . Whereas, on the other
hand, thesets o|dyadic rational sthat we use are composed ofsub-
Numbers ofa rea| Number. Thi s i mmanentisation o|procedures i s
typical o|the ontological approach, that approach which captures
thebeingo|Number. Toseei|aNumberthati snota dyadicrati onal
is a real number, it su|hces to exami ne it accordi ng to its three
components.
=
its mattermustbe ;
~ its |orm must be i nhnite,
=
its residue must be i nhnite.
Thi s alone al lows us to conclude. Tben we can state that the
Numberisthecuto|twosets o|dyadic rati onal s, andthatthere|ore
itisindeeda real number in thec| assi csense . ut, al| the same, we
haveremai nedwithi nNumber,sincedyadicrati onal saresub- Numbers
o|a Number.
The i mmanence o| the thi nki ng o| being has not |altered |or a
moment in thi s approach to thetraditional real numbersgrasped i n
thespaceo|Numbers. Thecharacteri sati ono|atypeo|puremu| ti pl e
has been substituted |or operati onal hcti ons. And real numbers are
nomoremysteri ousherethanwhol enumbersor rati onal s. Thei rsol e
pecu| i arityisthattheymarkthemomentwhere ourpassagethrough
Numbersprompts ustoenvi sage i nhnite matters. Fromthi spoi nto|
vi ew, theontologicalsi ngul arityo|therea| si nrel ati ontothewhol es
andtherati ona| scanbesummedupinoneword. i nhnity. Thisalone
clarihes, i rrespective o|a|l complexities o|constructi on, with an eye
only to that i n which the numerical section operates, the |act that
rea| Numbers areexempl ari l ymodern.
I 6. 29. We nowhndourselves inpossession o|aconcepto|Number
thatsubsumes as particu| arspecies the natural whol e numbers, the
who|e positives andnegatives,the rational s, the rea| s, andthe ordi -
nal s. We have overcome the modern resistance to a uni hcation o|
theconcepto|Number see I . 8 . ut, i ntheprocess, wehaveal ready
seenthatthisconceptal sosubsumesotherNumbers,thatthehi stori -
caldeduction|romthedomai no|Numeri ca| ityi sverymuchl i mited.
Rational sandrealscoverthetotalityo|Numberso|hni tematterand
onl y some Numbers o| matter . It i s as i |our thi nki ng has so |ar
only brought to | ight a mi nute i ni ti al segment o| that whi ch being
78 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
pro||ers in terms o| possi b| e numeri ca| access to pure mu| ti p| icities.
The |uture o|thethi nki ng o|Number i s | i mi t| ess.
I6. JO. Inhnitesi mal s
Weremarkedi n 6. 22thatitwou| d bepossi b| etohnda NumberN
at once sma| lerthan and | arger than a| | the hnite ordi na| s whose
| i mit is . This Numbercoul dperhaps be said to be ' i nhnite|yc|ose'
to,anditputsusonthewaytoaconcepto|i nhni tesi mal Number.
Theideao|i nhnitelysmallnumber,|reelyempl oyedbyseventeenth-
and eighteenth-century mathemati ci ans, was di smi ssed i n the ni ne-
teenth century |or its obvi ousi nconsi stenci es. Itwas repl aced bythe
concepts o| the l i mi t Cauchy and o| the cut ( Dedeki nd . It reap-
peared around thi rty-hve years ago, i n the si ngul arl y artihci al , but
consistent, context o| the pure | ogic o| mode| s. obi nson' s non-
standard ana| ysi s. In the domai n o| Numbers, ' i nhnite|y smal l
numbers' or i nhni tesi ma| s abound in the most natura| |ashi on. It is
by means o| them that we wi|| comp|ete thi s di mi nutive j ourney
throughtheenchantedkingdom o|Numbers.
! 6. 3 I . Consi der the Number i ( , ( 0 , whose matter i s and
whose|orm,thesi ng| etono|thevoi d, hasthevoidasitsonl yelement.
It i s a positive Number, since 0 i s in its |orm.
Now thi s positive Number, even i |its matter is the same asthat
o|rea| Numbers,issma||ertbaneceryositice rea| Number.
In |act, i|a rea| Numberi spositive, 0 i sin its |orm,asi sthecase
|or i. 0 does notdi scri mi nate between i and a positivereal Number.
A| | the who| e Numbers other than 0 being in the resi due o| i, the
di scri mi nanto|iand a realNumberRwi | | bethehrstwhol eNumber
apart |rom 0 to hgure in the |orm o|R. Such a Number necessarily
exi sts, si nce the dehnition o|the real s dictates that the |orm o| R
shoul d be i nhnite. And, si ncethi s di scri mi nant is in the residue o| i,
i is sma| | er than R. There|ore there exi sts a Number i such that
0 < i<R |oreveryrea| Number. Thi sii ssi tuated' between' Zeroand
al| rea| numbersthoughtasNumbers. We wi|| saythatitisi nhnitesi-
ma| |or the real s.
I6. J2. Ceneral i sing thi s dehni ti on. We say that a set o| positive
Numbers, a| | o| the same matter, tends rati onal l y towards Zero i |,
|oreverydyadicpositiverati onal r,as c| osetoZeroas youl i ke,there
exi sts a NumberN, o| the set situated between Zero andr. In other
words. |or every dyadic rati onal q there exi sts N, be|onging to the
set such that 0 < N, < . Note that the c|assic notion o| 'tending
towards' i shererel ati vi sedtodyadicrational s. Inthel i mitlessdomain
W\ cLcbb cWLmPWcW \ m c LPLc \ W\c 7
o| Numbers, we must indicate which scale o| measurement is being
employed, because, aswe will see,iti sa|uays possible to hnd a sti l l
hnerscale.
Itisobviousthattheseto|real positiveNumberstendsrational l y
towardsZero.Othersetso|Numberscanbe|oundwhi chtendratio-
na| l y towards Zero, |or exampl e positive Numbers o| the type
( S , O, . . . , whose matter i s S( and whose |orm contai ns at
least O.
Wecan say,then,that.
z Num0er is innitesima| [or a set o[ Num0ers tbat tends rationa||y
touards Zero i[ it is
.
o[ tbe same matter as tbe Num0ers o[ tbe set,
- ositice,
.
sma||er tban a|| tbe Num0ers in tbe set.
So it is thattheNumber , O is i nhnitesi mal |or the set o| real
Numbers. On the other hand, there i s no i nhni tesi mal |or the set
o| Numbers S , O, . . . , preci sel y because this set contains the
very Number ( S( , ( O that is the smal lest positive Number o|
matterS( .
Thel i mi ti ngo|theconcepto|i nhnitesi mal toNumberso|thesame
matterastheNumberso|thesetthattendstowardsZeroisnecessary
because,i |thi srestrictionwerenoti nplace,tbere uou|dbeasmany
innitesima|s as ue uisbed. It woul d su|hce to augment the matter.
theNumber S , O i sposi ti ve, anditi scertai nl ysmal l erthanevery
positive Numberwhose matter is . In particul ar, i t i s smal lerthan
the i nhnitesi mal i ( , ( O , because the di scri minant is , which is
outsidethemattero|iandi ntheresidueo|( S( , ( O . Weseetowhat
extentourconcepto|thei nhnitesi mal i srel ati ve. thedensityo|order
over Numbers means that, however ' rel ati vel y' small a posi ti ve
Number might be, there sti l | exists an i nconsi stent mul ti pl ici ty o|
Numbers situated between it andZero.
We can, i | we wish, retai n the cl assi c dehni ti on. every posi ti ve
Numbersmal l erthanevery positiverea| is i nhnitesi mal . utthen we
wi l l see the i nhnitesi mal s grow and swarm uncontrol l abl y. The
' shores' o|Zerocontai n' as many' Numbers astheenti re domai n o|
Numbers. ecause,atthepoi ntwhere mul ti pl e~beingassuch incon-
sists, the notion o|' as many' loses all meani ng.
I6. JJ. Cutso|cuts
Take theNumberC ( , 0, ! , whose matter is andwhose |orm
is l i mited to the wholes 0 and ! . Thi s Number i s not real , si nce its
80 \W\L\LT. LL1W11\W, \LL, L\b, TLb
|orm is hnite. It is positive, si nce 0 is in its |orm. How can it be
situated amongstthe real s, to whi ch its matter belongs ?
A posi ti ve real whi ch does not have ! in its |orm is certai nl y
smal lerthan C. thedi scri mi nanti s !, whi chi si ntheresi due o|such
a real and in the |orm o|C.
A posi ti ve real which does have ! in its |orm i s certai nl y l arger
than C. |oral l whol e numbers l argerthan ! are in theresidueo|C,
whereas some o|them are certai nl y i n the |orm o|a real , since this
|orm is i nhnite. The discri mi nant will be the smal lest whol e l arger
than ! to bein the |orm o|thereal , and, si nce itis in C's resi due,C
wi l l be smal ler.
C there|ore i ssi tuated preciselybetweentherealswhi chhave ! in
thei rresidueandthereal swhichhave! inthei r|orm. Nowthesetwo
cl asses operate a partition into two o|the posi ti ve real s, a partition
which i sordered al l the positive real s which have ! inthei rresidue
aresmal lerthan allthepositivereal swhich haveiintheir|orm . We
can, then, per|ectlyl odge a Number' between' twodi sj ointcl asseso|
real s, i n the caesura o|a partition o|real s. And, si nce the reals are
themselvescutso|rational s, theNumberCwi l l beacuto|cuts.
Ceneral l yspeaki ng, gi ven an organi sedpartition into two o|a set
o| Numbers 'o| the same type' , that i s to say, dehned by cuts or
canoni cal presentati ons havi ng thi s or that property as we saw in
dehni ngthe real s , we wi l l cal l a 'cut o|cuts' a Numbero|mi ni mal
matter si tuated in thecaesura o|theparti ti on, being l arger than al l
thosei n the l ower segment andsmal l erthan al l thosein thehigher
segment. TheNumber( , ( 0, ! i sa cuto|cutsinthenumericaltype
' positive real Numbers' .
Theexi stenceo|cutso|cutsattestsoncemoretothei nhnitecapac-
ityo|Numbers~ ascoal escentasthey mightseem~ |or cuttingata
ointthe ul tra-dense |abric o| thei rconsecuti on.
I6. J4. So many other Numbers to vi si tand to descri be! utworks
thattakedelighti nthisarebegi nni ngtoappear. Andthephi |osopher
i snotdehnedbycuri osity,thej ourneyi snota di sinterestedone. The
phi | osopher must, be|ore l eavi ng the ki ngdom convinced thatevery
numberthoughtOl in its being i s a Number, descend back down to
cal cul ati on. Or, rather, to the exi stence o| cal cul ati on, because the
phi l osopheri snotacal culatorei ther. utthesenumbers,|romwhich
our soul is knitted, the phi l osopher wishes to render over entirely,
evenasregardsthederivationo|thei roperati onal mechani sm, tothe
i mmemori al ande||ectless transparency o|eing.
4
LCt3tOH3 LmCHSOHS
# t
| 7
l3tut3 | HtCtuUC
I 7. I . The domai n o| ordinal s and o| cardi nal s hol ds an extreme
cbarm|or thought. A proo|by a||ect ~ by a||ection, even ~ o|what
Icl ai mhere, isthat, on reHecti on, thi scharmi sthato|Nature itsel |.
an abundant di versity and, at the same ti me, a mute monotony.
Nothingisthesame, everythi nggoestoi nhnity,butonehearsa |un-
damental note, a basso ostinato, signal l ing that these myri ads o|
multipl icities and |orms, these compl icated mel odi es, pro| i |erate
the repose o| the identica| . l| poets' metaphors take as thei r
re|erencetheskyandthetree, theHowerandthe sea,the pond and
the bird,thi s i s becausetheywoul dseak thi s presence o|the Same
that the unl i mited appearances o| nature vei l and revea| . In the
same way, the ordi nal s, sti l l si ngul ar i n the i nhnity o|thei r i nhnite
number, in the i nconsi stency o| their Al l , a| so repeat the transitive
stabi l ity and the i nternal homogeneity o| natural mul ti pl es, those
mu|tiplesthatthey allowtobethoughti nthei rpure bei ng. Iti shard
to tear onesel |away |rom the inte|lectual beatitude brought on by
thecontempl ation o|the ordi na| s, one by one and as a ' set' . I thi nk
o|thegreatIndi anmathematici anRamanuj an,
'
whohel deachwhol e
number to be a personal |riend. He was i nvested by thi s poem o|
Number,o|whi chthePoemo|nature i sthesymmetrical counterpart
withi n language. He did not like to construct proo|s, but rather, as
adreamero|theordi nal site,todraui ni twithcurveso|recogni ti on,
whichhi scol leaguesregardedwithsomesurpri se. Comi ng|roma|ar,
inal l senseso|theword,hewasnotaccustomedtoourseveremodern
distinctions. He saw numbers di rectly |or what they are. natural
84 \LP11\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
treasures,wherebeingl avi shesits multipleresourceandits |asti di ous
i denti ty i n the same gesture i n whi ch, |or the poet, it arranges the
'correspondences' o|sensi bi l ity.
I 7. 2. We have at our disposal a concept o|Number, and we know
that this concept subsumes ourtradi ti onal numbers. Wholes, ratio-
nal s, real s, ordi nal s, thought i n thei r multiple~being, are Numbers.
| t must now be shown ~ a sl ightly less rewardi ng task ~ that thi s
concept subsumes our traditiona| numbers not onl y in thei r being,
butalsoi ntheiroperati ons. As|araswemaybe |romthatsensi bi l ity
that i s rul ed by counti ng, it must nevertheless be shown that it is
possi bl e to count with Numbers, and that thi s counting coincides,
|or thecl assi cal typeso|Numbers,withordinarycounting. Wemust
cover al gebra, addi ti on, mul ti pl icati on,etc. | |we di dnot, then who
woul dbel i eveuswhen,speaki ng|romthesol epoi nto|viewo|being,
we said thattheseNumbers are numbers ?
I 7. J. What is meant by ' operati on' , or cal cul ati on, is the consider-
ati ono|' obj ects' uponwhi chonenol ongeroperatesonebyone,but
at least two by two. the sumo|x andy, the divi si on o|x by y, etc.
And, asthemattero|Numberis made o|ordi nal s, itistobeexpected
thatwe have to deal with, to thi nk, pai rs o|ordi nal s. Sowewi l | be
happi l y detained |or a |ew more moments i n the enchanted domai n
o|natural mul ti pl es. Thi swhol ei nterl udeisdedicatedtosomereHec-
ti onsand proposi ti onsaboutpai rs o|ordi nal s, ordi nal stakentwoby
two. And, as we shal l see, these coup|es are al sotota| l ynatural . we
can connect them backto ' si ngl e' ordi nal svi a a procedure which in
itsel |hol dsa greatcharm.
I 7. 4. We wi l l speak o|ordered airs o|ordi nal s, whi ch we denote
by(W, W). ' Ordered'meani ngthatone takesintoconsi derationthe
ordero|thetermsin thecoupl e~ wewi l l thusspeako|the hrstterm,
W and the second, W ~ which wasn' t the case i n our concept o|
the simple pai r, denoted by ee compare 7. 7, which was a pure
' gatheri ng together' o| two terms regardless o| thei r order. Or, in
other words. i| W, and W are di ||erent, then the ordered pai r
(WW)i snotthesamethi ngastheordered pai r(W_ ,W, ). |n order
better to di sti ngui sh the si mple pai r |rom the ordered pai r, we wi l l
cal l the l atter a cou|e.
Wecanal soal l ow' coupl es' o|thetype(W, W, ). |nsuchcases, W,
occupi es both thehrst andthesecond place.
The concept o| ordered pai r, or coupl e, pl ays a deci si ve role in
mathemati cs. it underl i es all thi nkingo|rel ati ons and o||uncti ons.

WP\PL 1WLL\LL 85
It can be reduced to a hgure o| the pure multi pl e, testi |yi ng to the
|actthatrelations and|uncti onsdo notdependon anysort o|addi-
tiona|beingapart |rom the multi pl e, thatthere is no ontological di s-
tinction between boundobj ectsandthe bondwhichbi ndsthem. ut
wewi l l empl oytheconcepthere i n i tsnaVe sense.
I7. 5. Wewi l l cal l maxima|ordina|ofa coup|e(WW_),anddenote
by Max ( WW_) , eitherthe l arger o|the two ordi nal sW, andW,
i|theyaredi ||erent,or, i|thecoupl eis o|thetype(WW, )thesi ngl e
ordi na| W thathguresi nit.Youareremi nded see8. O thatordi na| s
aretotal l yorderedbybel ongi ng. i |W, andWaredi ||erent,thenone
i snecessari l y smallerthanthe other bel ongs tothe other .
Thi smostelementarynotiono|themaxi mal termo|a coupl ewi l l
p|ay acruci al rolei nwhat|ol lows. Iti si mportanttogeta hrmgrasp
o|it.
I 7. 6. Take a couple o|ordi nal s (WW), whi ch we will denote by
C and another couple (W
,
,W
,
), which we will denote by C. We
will dehne an order-rel ati on between these couples i n the |ol l owi ng
way. Wesaythat C i ssmal lerthan C_ andwrite C, < C, i |one o|
thethree |ol l owingconditions i ssati shed.
! The maxi mal ordi nal o| the coupl e C is equal to the maxi mal
ordi nal o|thecoupl eC

. |n otherwords i |Max( CjE Max( C ,

it is alwaysthecasethatC

< C_ .
Z The maxi ma|ordi nal o|coupl eC

isequal tothemaxi mal ordi nal

o| the coupl e C,, butthe hrst term o|the coupl e C, i s smal ler
than the hrst term o| the coupl e C . |n other words, i n a case
where Max C Max C , i |W, W, , then C

< C .
3 The maxi mal ordi nal o| the coupl e C, is equal to the maxi mal
ordi nal o| the coupl e C, and the hrst term o| the coupl e C, is
equal to the hrst term o| the coupl e C, but the second term
o| C

is smal l er than the second term o| C. In other words,

Max Cj Max C and W W
,
, but W W
-
. In thi s case,
C, 5 C .
Evidently, i| none o| these three condi ti ons are sati shed, then the
couples C
.
and C must be identical . they have the same hrst term
and the same second term. A contrario, i |two coup| es o| ordi na| s
are di ||erent, either one i s smal l er than the other, or the other i s
sma| l erthan it. the rel ati on is tota|.
Thi s order |ol l ows di rectly |rom empl oyment o| the operator
Max( C , or, i | this yields onl y an identity, |rom the comparati ve
8 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
exami nati on, in thi sorder, rst|y o|the hrstordi nal o| each couple,
tben, i |thi s examination too yi el ds onl y an i dentity, o|the second
ordi nal o|each coupl e. Themaxi mumtrumpsthehrstterm, andthe
hrstterm the second. Some exampl es.

(6, 0) is smal ler than (0, 7), because its maxi mum is 6, which is
smal lerthanthe maximum o|the l atter, which is 7,

(0, ) is smal l erthan( ! , ), because,thei rmaxi mabeingi dentical

it i s , the hrst term o|the |ormer, 0, is smal ler than the hrst
term o|the |atter, ! ,
O
(S , ) is smal l erthan(S , S , because,thei rmaxi ma being
equal theyare both S , thesuccessoro| andtheir hrstterm
l i kewi se it i s S in both cases , the second term o| the hrst
coupl e, whi ch is , i s smal l erthan the second term o|the other,
which is S .
Note thatt hecoupl e (0,0) i st hesmal lest coupl e o|al l , si nce its
maxi mum, its hrstterm and its secondtermare all equal to0, which
i s itsel|thesmal lest ordi nal .
It is al so cl earthatcoupl es |orm an inconsistent multi ple, since,
al ready, the ordi nal s themselves cannot |orm a set. In speaki ng o|
' the' couples, but also o|' the' ordinals, or ' the' Numbers, we must
al waysrememberthatwecannot attri bute anypropertytowhatever
thi s 'the' designates . there is no question o|a thi nkable, orpresent-
abl e, total i ty. In particul ar, i |there exi sts a mi ni mal coupl e |or the
orderthatweare goingto dehne it isthe pair (0, 0) , therecertainly
i snota maxi mumcouple |or thi sorder.
I 7. 7. I leavethereaderthetasko|showi ngthattherelationbetween
couples that we have j ust dehned i s a genui ne order-rel ation and
there|ore, essenti al l y, transi ti ve. i | C, < C and C, < C

, then
C < C

.
Farmore i nteresting i sthe|actthati t i s a ue||-orderedrclation. l
havegi ven the dehni ti on o| thi s in 6. 4. given any set whatsoever o|
terms wel l -ordered by a rel ati on <, there exi sts one and one onl y
el emento|thatsetthati sminima||ortheorder-rel ati on, whi chi stbe
smal lestelemento|thatset.
Take any non-empty set E o|couples o|ordi nal s~ that i s, a set
all o| whose elements are couples o| ordi nal s. Consi der all those
coupl e el ements o| E ubose maximum is minima| for . In other
wordsal l the coupl esC E suchthat Max C isthesmal lestordinal
tohgureintheel ementso|Easmaximumo|acouple. Thi si spossible
byvi rtueo|theprinci pl eo|mi ni mal itythatcharacterisestheordi nal s
WP\PL 1WLL\LL 87
see 8. IO . Civen the property ' being a maxi mal ordi nal in a coupl e
C which belongs to E' , there exi stsa smal lest ordi nal to sati s|y thi s
property. Wethus obtai n a subset l' o|E, al l o|whose elements C
have the same mi ni mal maxi mum. Note that, because o| the hrst
o|the conditions dehning the order o| couples, a|| the elements o|
E' are smaller than a|| the elements that remai n, that are i n E~E
i |any .
Nowconsider,i nl',theseto|coupleswhosehrsttermi smi ni mal
|or E . In other words, al l thecouples C (W, ,W,) suchthatW, is
the smal lest to be |ound i n all the hrst terms o|the couples i n l'.
This i spossi bl e |or the same reason as be|ore. it su|hces to consi der
the property ' bei ng an ordi nal that hgures i n a coupl e i n l' as the
hrstterm' , andtotakethemi ni mal ordi nal |orthi sproperty.Wewi l |
thus obtain a setEo|coupl eshavi ng thesamemaxi mum because
they are in E' and the same hrst term mini ma| |or l' . Note, in
consideringthesecondo|theconditionsdehni ngtheordero|coupl es,
thata|| the elements o| l" are smal l er than a|/ the el ements that
remai n, whi ch are in l' -l", whi ch themselves are a|l smal|er than
theelements o|l~l'.
Therei sasorto|concentricembedding,wherethecoupleso|each
i nnerci rcleare smal lerthan those o|theexterior boundary.
Consi der,hnal l y, inl",theproperty ' beinganordi nal thathgures
in second position in one o|the couples i n E' . There i s a mi ni mal
ordi nal |or thi sproperty. ut, thi sti me, theset obtai nedconsists o|
onecou|e on/y. Thi si s because, i nl",thehrstterm o|thecouples
is hxed it is the minimal hrstterm |or the coupl es i n l' . In hxing
the second term as mi ni mal |or thi s p|ace , one couple i s entirely
determined.uttheothersarethemselvessmal lerthanallthecouples
inf'~l", whicharesmal l erthanthecouplesi nl~f'. Sothemi ni mal
couple obtainedi nl"is in |actmi ni mal i n l~qro.
Thi sproperty o| mi ni mal ity |or theorder o|coupl es o|ordi nal s
grants usthree essenti al |reedoms.
88 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
! Civen a coupl e C, it is possi bl e to designate the uni que couple
that will come di rectl y a|ter it i n the order we have dehned. To
doso, itsu|hcestoconsi der,i na suitabl esetthatcontai nsC,the
subset o| those that are l arger than i t. This subset wi l l have a
mi ni mal element, whi ch is the smal lest one to be l arger than C,
and is thusthe ' successor' o| C.
2 I| a property o| couples dehnes a set the set o| couples which
possess that property , then we can sa|ely speak o|the smal lest
coupl ein that set, and there|oreo|thesmal lestcoupl eto possess
thatproperty.
3 Ci ven a set o|couples, we can speak o|the upperbound o|that
set,aswecan|orsetso|ordi nal s, seeI2. 6 . itsu|hcestoconsi der
the smal lestcoupl e that i s l argerthan all thecouples intheset.
' Wel l -orderedness' al l owsthoughttomovebetweeninteriormi ni mal -
i tyandexterior maxi mal ity. thesmal lesto|a givenset, andthehrst
( outsi de tobel argerthanal l those i nthatset.Thetrapi stoimagine
thatonetherebygains accessto internalmaxi mal ity. this i snotatall
thecase because, |or couples as |or ordi nal s, thatwhich goes tothe
l i mit i snotinternal l ymaxi mi sabl e.
I 7. 8. We are speaki ng o|successi on and l i mit. Herewe return, let
usremark,tothedi sputations o|chapter. Di scoveringthe ki nshi p
between ordi nal s andcoupl es o|ordi nal s was ourlatentmotive.
I 7. 9. Let' s begi n with an example. Whatcanwe sayo|a coupleo|
the|orm(WS(W ,whereW, i sanyordi nal whatsoeverapart|rom
0, and where S W is the successor o| any ordi nal W ? Everythi ng
depends on the maxi mal ordi nal in the coupl e. Suppose that W, is
maxi mal andthusthat S W W, . I| wecompare the couple to al l
othersthatal so haveW, as thei rmaxi mal ordi nal , weseethat it i s.
~ l argerthan al l those where W[ onl ycomes in second position in
thecoupl e pri macy o|hrstposi ti on, condi ti onZ o|theordering
o|couples ,
~ l arger than al l those whi ch, in second posi ti on, have an ordi nal
smal lerthan S W thi rd condi ti on o|order , i n particul ar, it i s
l argerthanthecoupl e(WW),
~ smal l erthanal l thosewhich have, in second position, an ordinal
l arger than S W . In particul ar, it is smal l er than the couple
(WS S W ), supposi ngthatS S W remai nssmal lerthanW, ,
thus leaving W, ' s maxi mal status intact. ut l et' s assume thi s
hypothesi s.
WP\PL 1WLL\LL 8
It seems cl ear |rom thi s that the coupl e (WS W , given the
assumed hypothesi s, intercalates itse|| exact|y between the couple
(WW)andthe coupl e(W , S S W ). Morespecihca| | y, wecansay
that itsucceeds the hrsto|the twocoupl es.
||,ontheotherhand, wetakethecoupl e(W, , L)where Lisa l i mi t,
andsti llsupposethatW, i s maxima| i nthecoupl e, wecannot deter-
minea couple thatitsucceeds. This coupl eiscertai nl yl argerthata||
the couples o|the |orm (WW) where W i s smal l er than L thi rd
conditiono|order . utL, a l i mi tordi nal , preci se| ydoesnotsucceed
anyo|theW i nquesti on. Therei sthere|oreon|yonepossi bi l i ty. the
couple (WL) i s the uer bound see N6} o| the set o| couples
(WW), where W L, with W, , o|course, being maximal ~ that
istosay,l argerthanL. Wecanal sosaythatthecoupl e(WL) i sthe
limit o|the coup|es (WW) |or W lessthan L.
Fi na| l y, take the coupl e (0, S W . The Max. o| thi s coupl e is
evi dently S W . ut it is certai nl y the sma||est couple to have thi s
Max. |n |act, i ts hrst term i s mi ni mal i t is 0 , so every coupl e C
where Max C S W andwhere the hrst term is not d ~ there|ore
every coupl e o| thi s sort other than our exampl e ~ is greater
than it.
eingthe smal lestcoupl e whose Max. is S W , ourcoupl e must
succeed the ' | argest coupl e' ~ i | it exi sts ~ whose Max. i s i mmedi -
ately i n|erior. Note that these noti ons o| ' l arger' and ' i mmediately
i n|erior' can be disrupted by the i ntervention o| limit ordinal s. Al l
the same, thi s is not the case in our exampl e. si nce the Max. o|
our couple is S W , an i mmediately i n|eri or Max. exi sts. it i s W
What woul d be the l argest coupl e whose Max. is W ? Obvi ousl y
thatcoupl ewhosehrsttermi s maxi mal condi ti on 2 o|order . ut
the hrst term ofa cou|e ubose Max. is W attai ns i ts maxi mum
when it is equal to W. For, i |it surpasses W, the Max. changes.
So the coup| e that i mmediately precedes (0, S( W in the order o|
couples is (W,W). Wecan al so say that (0, S( W i s the successor
coupl e o|(W,W).
I 7. I O. Whatwereal l ywanti sto 'ontologise'coup|eso|ordi nal s, as
wedi d |or ordi na| s. hnd an i ntri nsic characteri sati on, not boundto
orderal one,o|successorcouplesandl i mi tcoupl es. Theexampl esi n
theprevious paragraph wi l l gui de us.
I 7. I I . Let's beginwi thcoup|escontai ni ng0.
Wehaveremarkedthatcoup|eso|the|orm(O, W ),|oral l W
,
other
than 0, are the smal lest ones whose Max. is W,

Thi s a| lows us to
characterisethem i mmanentl y.
0 \cP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
! A coupl e o| the |orm (O, S Wj) is always a successor it succeeds
(WW, ) . Thus the couple (0, ! ) is a successor it succeeds the
mi ni mal coupl e(0, 0) .
2 Acoupl eo| the |orm(O, L) is al ways a l i mit. it is theupperbound
o|the sequence o|couples (W, ,W,) where W, and W, pass i nto
the l i mi tordi nal L. So that the coupl e(0,) i sthe l i mi to|al l the
couples (m, n) where m and n are hni te ordi nal s and there|ore
natural whol enumbers, seechapter ! ! .
Coupleso|the|orm(WO)dependj ustas di rectl y, as regardstheir
i ntri nsi ccharacteri sati on, on thenatureo|the ordinal W, .
! A coupl e o| the |orm (S W[ ,0) is the smal lest coupl e to have
S Wj as Max. in rst osition. It is l arger than al l those which
have S Wj as Max. in secondosition that i s, couples o|the
|orm (W_, S Wj) where W, i s smal ler than S( Wj. |n |act it
comes j ust a|ter the l argest o| these coupl es, which latter wi l l
evi dently have the l argest possi ble hrstterm toconserve S Wj' s
status o|maxi mum i n second posi ti on. Thi sl argest hrst term i s
W, , the i mmedi ate predecessor o| S Wj. The l argest o| the
couples which come be|ore (S(W[ , 0) i s there|ore the couple
(WS( Wj). Wecanconcl ude. everycoupl eo|the|orm(S W, , O)
i s a successor. Thus the coupl e ( ! ,0) i s a successor it succeeds
(0, !) .
Z Acoupl eo| the |orm(L,O)is l argerthaneverycoupl eo|the |orm
(WL) where W, i s less than L. ut there is no such couplethat
i s l arger than all the rest, because there i s no W, that i s ' closer'
to thel i mit ordinal L than all others see 9. I 8 . Thecoupl e(L,O)
i s, moreover,smal l erthanallthecoupleso|thetype(L,W, ) where
W, is not0. In a sense, it makesacutbetweenthecouples(W L)
and the coupl es(L, O). Al l the same, amongst the l atterthere is a
mi ni mal coupl e, which is the coupl e (L, I ), and whi ch there|ore
succeeds(L,O). Hereagai nwehndthestri ki ngdissymmetry,char-
acteristic o|the ordinal s, between mi ni mal i ty guaranteed and
maxi mal ity which presupposes successi on . The couple (L,O) is
the l i mit, or upper bound, o| the sequence (W L) |or W, L,
anditi mmediatelyprecedesthecouple(L, I ). Itcreatesaninhnite
adherence to its l e|t, or ' on thi s si de' o| it, and the void o|one
si ngle additi onal stepto its right, beyond it.
I 7. 2. Let' snowturn to ' homogenous' coupleso|thetype(s s)or
(LL). Everythi ng wi l l once more depend upon the Max. o|these
coupl es.
WP\PL 1WLL\LL

I|s , orL, are the Max. , the problemistri vi al .(s s_)is asuccessor.
|usta momento|reHectionwi l l showthatitcomes j usta|terthe
coupl econsti tuted bys, (theMax. andthepredecessoro|s, . As
|or (L, , L,), iti ssurel ythe | i mit o|the sequence o|couples o|the
type(LW, ), where W, traverses theelements o|the ordi nal L_.

|| b_ or L_ are the Max. , thi ngs are not much more di |hcul t. lt is
certai n that (s , ,s,) is a successor. it comes j ust a|ter the couple
consti tuted by the predecessor o|s, and by the Max. s, . As |or
(LL,), itis assuredlythel i mito|thesequenceo|coupl es(WL_),
where W, traversestheelements o|L|rom0 ' upto' L, .
I 7. I J. We wi l l hni sh with mi xed coupl es. The method does not
change atal l .

l|, in a couple o|thetype(s, L) or (L,s), it is L which is theMax. ,

these couples are successors. they come j ust a|ter the couples
obtained by replacings with its predecessor.

I|s is the Max. , the coup| esare| i mi ts o| the sequences o|coup|es

o|the type (s,W, ) or (Ws), where W, traverses the elements o|
the l i mitordi nal .
I 7. I4. |i nal | y, we now have a tabl e o|i mmanentcharacteri sati ons
o|couples as |ol l ows.
Typc Max. Exampl c Charactcr
(O,O) U Uni quc Spcci al
(,
) S (O, I ) Succcssor
(,
L) L (O,
) Ii mi t
(, )
( I , O) Succcssor
(L
,) L (

,O) Ii mi t
(

_
,)

(2, I ) Succcssor
(
,)
:
( I ,2) Succcssor
(LL,) L
(, , ) Li mi t
(LL,) L
, (
,

) Ii mi t
(,
L)

(S| O
l ,
O
) Ii mi t
(,
L) L (
]
,
O
) Succcssor
(l.)
(
O
, S|
O
l Ii mi t
(L
,) I (
, I ) Succcssor
This table has a per|ect symmetry, broken only by the i naugural
coup|e o| the void with itsel |, the ontol ogi cal basi s o| the whol e
constructi on.
Z \ cP\WPL L1LWb|\Wb
I 7. I 5. Itis entertai ni ngtovi sua| i sethe begi nningo| thesequenceo|
ordina| coup| es.
Wehave a| readyseenthata|terthecoup| e(0,0)comesthecoup|e
(0, ! ), then the coup|e ( ! ,0). Onecan quickly see that it is( ! , ! ) that
succeeds(I ,0),si nceiti sthe| argestcoup| ewhoseMax. i s ! . Comi ng
next is (0,2), whi ch i s, as we have remarked, the smal lest coup|e
whose Max. i s2. The readerscanexercisethemse|ves bycalculating
the rest. || we draw the successi on o| coupl es onto a squared back-
ground, usingthehorizontal axis torepresenttheordi nal thatoccu-
pi esthe hrst p|ace andthe verti cal to representthatwhich occupies
the second, we obtai n the |o| l owi ng.
<, 1 > <1 , > <Z, > <3, > <4, >
Whatwe see i n this diagram i sthattheroute through thecoup|es
|orms a ki nd o|' chai n' which evidently cou| d be proj ected onto an
ordi na| axi s. At any gi ven moment we know how to ' produce' the
nth coup| e, as soon as its predecessor has been determined. It is
tempting to |ormal ise thi s i ntui ti on by establ i shing a term-by-term
correspondence between ordi nal s and coup| es o|ordi na| s, since we
have seenthatthe ' passageto the | i mit'representsnoobstacletoour
WP\PL 1WLL\LL | J
doing so. there is a concept o| the l i mi tcoupl e, structural l y di stinct
|romthesuccessorcouple. Thi smagni hcentconstructi on, whichproj -
ectscouples representableona pl aneora sur|ace ontothel i nearity
o| their constituents si ngle ordinal s , is a tri umph o| ontol ogy. It
shows that there is no more in the doubl e than in the si ngl e. It l i n-
earisesthedi vergence o|twoness.
I 7. I 6. Ourunderlying motive here is to show thatcouples o|ordi -
nal sbehave' l i ke' ordi nal sthemsel ves. Thesi mplestwayistoestabl i sh
between couples o| ordi nal s and ordi nal s a bi univocal correspon-
dence see 4. 5 . However, it i s dubi ous, absurd even, to speak o|a
correspondenceora |uncti on between two i nconsi stentmulti pl i ci ti es.
Neither the ordi nal s nor the ordi nal couples are sets. How can we
j usti |y comparing orl i nkingthesetwo untotal isabl ecol lecti ons ?
We have given the pri nci pl e |or the |orci ng o| thi s i mpasse i n
chapter ! 0. we must, i |we can, dehnethe correspondence between
the ordi nal sandthecouples via transhni te i nducti on, orrecurrence.
The |unction will only be dehned at successi ve level s, without us
havingto considerthe ' a| l s' between which it operates.
I 7. I 7. Letj (WW) bethe |unction we wi sh to dehne andwhi ch,
to every coupl e o| ordi nal s, wi l l make correspond bi uni vocal l y an
ordi nal . j (WW) W,.
Wearehrstl ygoingtorootthe|unctionjsecurel yi nitshrstval ue,
whi chwi l l correspondtothesmal lesto|thecouples, thecoupl e(0, 0).
Re|erbacktochapter I0 |or the whol eo|thi sprocedure.
Wepositexpl i ci tl y.
KL 1
j (0, 0) 0.
Wewi l l thenexami ne thecaseo|successorcouples compare the
typology o| couples in I 7. I 4 . Let C be a coupl e whi ch succeeds
couple C which we wi l l denote ~ i n an extensi on o| the notation
adopted|ortheordi nal s~ byC S( Cj. Thesi mplestwayi stomake
correspondtothecoupl e,vi aj, a C,, whichisthesuccessoro|coupl e
Cthesuccessorordi nal o|the ordi nal whi chcorresponds, vi aj, to
C, . we make the ordi nal s succeed 'in paral l el ' to the successi on o|
coup|es. Wetherebyrespectthebasi ci deao|inducti on, orrecurrence.
supposi ngthe|unctionj to bedehned|orthecouple C wedehne it
byanexplicitrule|orthecouple C_whichsucceedsC, . Wethere|ore
posit.
KU Z j C j S C S j Cj .
| 4 \LP1\WPL L1LWb|\Wb
Let' s move on to | i mit coup| es. We suppose the |unction j to be
dehned |or al | coupl es that precede a | i mi tcoupl e CL. To a| | these
coup| es, the |unction j makes correspond an ordi nal W j C . The
idea i s evidently to take, as va| ue o|j|or the l i mi t coupl e CL, the
ordi na| that comes j ust ' a|ter' a|| o|theordi nal s thus associated, via
j, with the coupl es that precede CL. We know o| the existence o|
thi s ordina| that comes j ust ' a|ter' a set o| ordi nal s see N6}. it is
the upper bound o| that set, denoted by sup. We posit then that
j CL i sthesup. o|a|| the ordi na| sj( C |ortheseto|C smal|erthan
CL. So.
K L J j CL sup. j( C , |or C < CL.
The i nductive dehniti on o| j i s now compl ete, si nce we have
covered thethreecases~ the mi ni mum 0, 0) , successors and l i mits
~ dehni ngj vi a an expl ici t rul e which makes its value depend upon
theval uesobtai ned ' bel ow' theterm in questi on.
I 7. I 8. A |ew examp| es.
What, |orexampl e, isthe val ue o|j( (0, ! ) ? We haveseenthatthe
coupl e (0, I ) is the successor, i n the order o|couples, o|the couple
(0,0). We apply ru| eZ. j (0, I ) S( j( (0, 0) . utrul e ! i ndicatesthat
f (0, 0) 0. Then it must be. j (0, ! ) S 0 I .
What i stheval ueo|j( (0, ) ? We have seen thatthecoupl e(0,)
comes j ust a|terthe set o| al | thecouples (m,n), where M and n are
hnite ordi nal s the natura| who| e numbers . Now it is cl ear that j
associ atesahniteordina| witheacho|thesecoupl es,sinceasuccessor
coupl ewi | l be associ ated wi th the successor o|the ordi nal thatcor-
respondsto itspredecessor,andsinceonebegi ns |rom 0. Tocouples
o| the type (M q) wi | l correspond the sequence 0, ! , 2, etc. Conse-
quentl y,j (0, ) wi l | haveasitsval uetheupperboundo|allthehnite
ordi nal s, that is, the hrsti nhnite orl i mi t ordi nal , whichistosay.
Thusj (0, ) .
These e| ementary exampl es demonstrate that we are i ndeed in a
posi tion to cal cu| ate j |or any coupl e whatsoever. it is enough to
' progress' the |ength o| the wel l -ordercdness o| coup| es. The val ue
|or the hrst coup| e being hxed, rul es Z and 3 al l ow us to know the
va| ue o|j|or a coup| e C on the basi s o|the va| ues which jassigns
to thecoup|es which precede it.
I 7. I 9. Thatour|uncti onf, dehnedi nductivelywiththesethreerules,
isdehnitelybi uni vocal meritsverihcati on, whateverevi dencewemay
al ready have on this poi nt.
WP\PL 1WLL\LL 5
Itmusthrsto|al l beconhrmedthatj i s i nj ective,or,in Dedeki nd' s
terms, disti nct see4. 5 . Inotherwordsthat, i |coupl eC
.
i sdi ||erent
|romcoupl eC,thenordi nal j Cji sdi ||erent|romordi nal j C . We
canassureoursel veso|thi sbycastingoureyeover theruleso|i nduc-
ti on. | |twocoupl esare di ||erent,theyare ordered,say,C

< C . The
valueo|j( C dependsontheval ueo|j |orthecoupleswhi chprecede
it,anditi sdi ||erent|romal l o|theseval ues. Speci hcal l y, iti sdi ||erent
|romtheval ue o|f |orC, , whi chcomes be|oreC . Wecanthere|ore
be sure thatC

= C j Cj =j C, . Function jis i nj ective.

In |act, we have a strongerproperty here. the |uncti on ' proj ects '
the order o| coupl es i nto the order o| ordi nal s techni cal l y, it is a
homomorphi sm|rom the ordero|coupl esi ntotheordero|ordi nal s ,
suchthat,i |C

< C, then[C j( C . For, i |C,comesa|terC

, , its
value |orj which is either the successor o|the value o|the coupl e
whi ch precedes i t, orthe upper bound o|the val ues o|j |or al l the
coupl eswhich precede i t i nanycasesurpassestheval ue o|j |orC

.
Consequently. C

< C j Cj j C .
| t remai nst obeshownthat|unctionj i ssurjectice,amodernword
meani ng that every possi bl e value o|the |unction is e||ecti vel y |ul -
hl led. Inotherwordsthat,|oreceryordi nal W,thereexistsanordi nal
coupleC |orwhi ch[C W.
Supposethatanordi nal Wexistswhoseval ue|or|unctionj is not
a coupl e C. Then there exi sts a smal l er such ordi nal pri nci ple o|
mi ni mal i ty , sayu. Thusal l ordi nal ssmal lerthanu docorrespond,
vi a, j, to a coupl e. We can see then that u must necessari l y al so,
contrary to the hypothesi s, correspond, vi a j, to a coupl e. ecause,
i |ui sasuccessor,whi chmeansthatu S ujandj C N
j
, itmust
thenbe rule2 o|the inductivedehni ti ono|j thatj S C S uj
u. And, i| u is a l i mit, then, si nce al l the ordi nal s whi ch precede u
correspond,vi aj, tocoupl es, u itsel |appears as theupper boundo|
al | those ordi nal s, and thus, |rom rul e3, i tsval ue |or j wi l l be the
coupl e that comes ' a|ter' al l thecouples correspondi ng to ordi nal s
smallerthanu.
So,hnal l y, jisi ndeedabi univocal correspondencebetweencouples
and ordi nal s. Thi s correspondence is, i n addi ti on, an i somorphi sm
betweenthestructureo|ordero|coupl es vi atheMax. , thehrstterm,
andthen the secondterm andthestructure o|order o|theordi nal s
belonging . Su|hce to say at thi s poi ntthattheordi nal coupl es are
a sort o| ' doubled' i mage o| si ngl e ordi nal s. Taken 'two by two' ,
nature is sti l l si mi l artoitsel |. Nature i s itsownmi rror.
7. Z0. Thesewanderings i nnaturethrough the l ooki ng-gl asso|the
doubleteach us.
\LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
~ thatthereexi stsawe| | -orderednessovercoup|eso|ordina| s, such
that these coup|es obey, as do ordi na| s, the principle o|
mi ni ma| ity,
~ that we can speak, as |or the ordi nal s, o| successorcoup|es and
| i mi tcoupl es,andthattheseattri butescanbeuncoveredbyi mma-
nent exami nati on al one o| the structure o| the couples which
possessthem,
~ thatthereexi sts betweencoup| esandordi na| sa |unctionjwhich
has al| thecharacteristicso|a bi uni vocal correspondence,except
thatthetotal itiesbetweenwhi chthi s|unctionoperatesareincon-
si stent, sothatj must be dehned by transhnite induction,
~ thatthi s|unctionjdehnesan i somorphi smbetweenthestructure
o| order o| coup|es o| ordina| sand the structure o| order o| the
ordi nal s, so that C, < C, i mpl ies that j, CjE j, C_ .
I nthe mi rroro| the doubl e, nature perseveres i nal l o| its |ormal
comportments.
Identi cal means wou| d a| l ow us to establ i sh that triplets o|ordi -
na| s, o|the |orm (W

,W_,W
,
), have the same properties ascoup| es
do, andi nparticu| arthattheyare i nbi univoca| correspondencewith
the si ngle ordina| s. The same goes |or n-tuplets o| ordi na| s o| the
|orm (WW , e e ,W,). In matter, it i s on|y the hrst step thatcosts.
Doub|ed, nature mai ntai ns its order. Redupl icated i n hnite series as
|ongasyou| i ke, naturepersi stsinmaintai ni ngitshrstidentity. Stabi | -
i ty, homogeneity, order, mi ni mal ity, the onto|ogical hi atus between
successors and l i mits. al l o|thi s remai ns when the si mpl icity o|the
ordi na| i smu|ti p| iedwithi nthe l i mi ts o|thehni te. Nature is its own
ha| l o|mi rrors.
I 7. 2 I . Mal l arme wrote. ' Nature is there, it wi l | not be added to' .
,
And it is a |act that, i| oneaddsto nature, andeven i| oneaddsand
adds, and so on repeatedl y, the domai n o| natural multiples attests
unabated to the pregnancy o| the Same. Thi s i s what we grasp in
every experience o| the natural . that ramihed growth, reproductive
di vi si on, |ar |rom suggesti ngto usthe Other, reposes in itsel |, inthe
eternal seat o|its order.
Now, we knowthatevery operati on, every al gebra, i sconcerned
with a doubl ing or tri p| i ng o|the terms upon which one operates.
We add two numbers to obtai n a thi rd, ca| cu| ate the sma| |est
common di visor o| two numbers, arrange i n a hni te sequence the
components o| a po| ynomi al . . . A|| these disci pl i nes o| reckoning
and a|gebra have as their substructure a hnite | i sting o| numerical
marks.
WP1\PL 1WLL\LL | 7
|| it is true that natural multi pl es, ordi nal s, |urni sh the matter o|
Number, we can understand why the ossibi|ity o| operati ons, o|
algebra, o| reckoni ng, hnds i ts ontol ogical guarantee i n nature' s
capacitytomaintainthei denti ca| wi thi ndi vi si on. eneaththeappar-
ent variegation o| schemes o| reckoning, the vari ety o| operati ons
and o|a|gebraic structures, l i es thi s perseverance o| natura| bei ng,
thi si mmanent stabi l ity i n hnite seri a| ity. Anoperati on i sneverany-
thing more than the mode in which LM thi nki ng accords with
Ma| l arme' s maxi m. i |, wi thoutexposi ngoursel ves to the di si ntegra-
tion o|theOther,wecancombi ne two Numbers ~ ' add' one to the
other ~ it is because nature, taken as doub|e, added to itsel |, re-
attachedtoitsel |,mai ntai nsthei mmanent|ormo|themul ti p|e~beings
throughwhi ch it i nconsi sts.
An operation, a counting, an algebra, are on| y marks o| our
thought' s being caught i n the mi rror-games whi ch it pleases bei ng
to pro||er, under the | aw o| the Same to which natura| mul ti p| es
di spose it.
|
Pl _COt3 O lUHOCtS
I 8. I . We must hnal ly cometo counting.
Onceitsbei nghasbeenhxed,thecombi natorycapacityo|Number
i sa mereconsequence. Itari ses |roman i nvestigativeingenuity asto
the ways i nwhich couples ortripletso|Numbers can be l i nked. ut
the source o| these l i nks is hel d completel y withi n the concept by
means o| which Number is anchored i n being. Al l that operations
can do i s to deploy ~ in the numberless domain o|Number ~ the
prodi gal ity o|being in its possi bl econnections.
Concomitantly,thedi |hcultyresi desi nthechoiceo|'good'dehni -
tions o| the l i nks, so that they shoul d con|orm to the |aci l ities o|
cal cul ati on. we wish theoperationstobeassoci ative,|orthere to be
a neutral element,i nverses,anditwoul dhel pi |theywereal socom-
mutative. We would be even happi er i |operati ons combi ned wel l -
behavedly amongst themselves, wi th a di stri butivity o| one with
regardtotheother. Toarriveattheseres ults,Numbermustbe scru-
tinised and we must care|ul l y authenticate the links we wish to
dehne.
I 8. 2. Thesubstanti al resultsto beobtainedthroughthei ngenuityo|
operati onal dehni ti ons are as |ol l ows.
! Wecandehnea hrstoperation on Numbcrsnamedadditionand
denoted by+,whi ch has theproperties o|a commutativegroup.
~ associ ati vity. N + ( N+N, N, +N +N, onecancount
'in any order' , and achi eve thesameresul t ,
PLLLP \ W\Lb
~ a neutral element which is Zero . N, -0 N, ,
~ i nversion whichisthesymmetriccounterpart . N, - ~N , 0,
~ commutativity. N, -N N -N, .
2 WecandehneonNumbersasecondoperation,namedmul ti p| i ca-
ti on, anddenoted by , which hasthe |o| l owi ng properti es.
~ associati vity. N,
.
( N N, N,
.
N_ N, ,
~ neutral element which is theNumber ! . N, I N, ,
~ existence o| an inverse i N |or every Numberdi ||erent |rom
Zero. N, i ( N ! ,
~ commutativity. N, N N N, .
3 Mul ti pl icationis distri butivein relationtoadditi on. N,
.
N-N
,

N, N -N , N,
.
These three operational consi derati ons woul d lead us t osaythat
Numbersform a commutaticee|d, i |it were not |orone probl em.
Numbersdonotecenformaset, becausetheyare i nconsistent.How
can something be a held~ which is supposed to be an a| gebraica| | y
dehnedentity~ i |itcannotbecounted asa multi pl e?
There|ore, prudently, we wi l l say onl y thi s. that every set consti -
tuted o|Numbers whosematter i s less than a givencardi nal i nhnity
there|ore every set constituted |rom Numbers whose matter i s
boundedbya' brute'hxedi nhnitequantitycanbegi venthestructure
o| a commutative held.

What i s more, as can be proved |or the

rationals orthe real s, there are other sets o|Numbers that are al so
commutative he| ds. Numeri ca| i nconsistency can be 'secti oned' into
innumerablealgebraic structures.
These logical caveats aside, theal gebrao|Numbers is the richest
concei vabl e. itscal cu|ativecapacitiesequal ~ |orexampl e~ thosewith
which the real Numbers |urni sh us in particul ar, it can be proved
thatevery Number has a square root, which i snotthe case i |one is
operating, |or example, i nthe held o|rati onal numbers .
I 8. 3. Aresul tat once| abori ous( i n itsprocedureso|veri hcati on and
o|keyimportance |ortheval idityo|ourconcepto|Number isthe
|ol l owi ng. operati ons dehned on Numbers coi ncide wi th operations
dehned on ' our' numbers, i |the latter are thought i n thei r being as
Numbers. |notherwords. take two real numbers r, andr, taken i n
thei rusual algebraicsense. | |thesumo|r, andr, such aswe know
i t, isthereal numberr

, thenthesumo|r, andr such asiti srepre-

sented' itsel |' in Numbers withNumberso|matterhniteorequal to
,see I 6.28 ~ ' sum' beingtakeni nthesenseo|theadditiondehned
on Numbers ~ wil| be preci se| y the representative, wi thi n Number,
o| the number r, . The same will go |or mul ti pl icati on, etc. More
Z00 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
techni cal l y, we can say that the hel d o| the real s, as we know it in
classical anal ysi s, i s i somorphi c to the real s thought as subset o|
Numbers.
It i s not, there|ore, sol el y in thei r being that ' our' usual numbers
can be thought o| as si ngul ar types o| Numbers, but also i n their
al gebra. OurrealNumbersareul ti matel yindistinguisbab|e|romreal
numbers. ln particul ar, real Numbersconstitute a complete ordered
Archi medeanhel d, whi ch istheuni vocalcustomary dehnition o|real
numbers.
Itcanbesai d, ul ti mately,thatal l thedi mensi onsandcapacitieso|
' hi storical ' numbersare retainedbythei rpresentati ve instancei nthe
i nnumerabl e swarm o|Numbers. Which conhrms.
~ that the ontological essence o| a number is nothi ng more than
thatwhi chourthoughtapprehendsittobewhenitisdetermined
as a type o|Number,
~ thattheoperati onal or algebraicproperties are onl ythe e||ect o|
a correct determi nati on, onthe basi so|natural multi pl icities, o|
the being o|Number.
Wethere|ore hndthe programmeo|uni hcation o|theconcept o|
Number one sol e concept which subsumes the natural whol e
numbers,thenegativewhol enumbers,therational s, therealsandthe
ordi nal s to be whol l y real ised,hrstly in mul ti pl e~being,andthen in
the operati onal di mensi ons .
|t is now possi bl e |or us to speak |reely o|, andto submitto cal -
cul ati on, enti ti es previ ousl y devoid o|anysense, l i ke the sum o|an
ordinal anda real number,orthe division o|a transhniteordinal by
a rati onal number, orthe square-root o|the division by three o|an
ordi nal , etc. Incredi ble equati ons l i ke.
~ whi ch, i nthe di spersedandl acunary hi storical theory o|numbers,
would have made absol utely nosense~ in the uni hed |ramework o|
theconcepto|Numberbecomeper|ectlymeani ng|ulalgebraic|ormu-
l ae, i ndicatingcertai nprocedureso|cal cul ati onanddehniteresults.
Number thus |ounds in being the l iteral connection o| what,
under the di sparate name o| ' numbers' , had dehned heterogeneous
domai ns.
PLLLP \ W\Lb Z0|
I 8. 4. Thedehnitiono|operationsonNumbersisessenti al l yatechni -
cal a||ai r. Whoever wi shesto|ol l ow it i n al l i tsdetai l is re|erred to
thel iterature.

Nevertheless, its ani matingspi rital lows a revi si on o|

concepts, a hnal passage throughthe Idea o|Number. In particul ar,
the systematic use o| transhnite induction hi ghl ights the |act that
Number,thoughto|i ni tsbei ng, i sessenti al l yani nhnitemulti ple the
section o|a |orm|roman i nhni te ordi nal~matter . In thesame way,
the recourse to sub-Numbers o| a Number in order to construct
operations ' |rom bel ow' attests to the i mportance o| the |act that
everyNumbercan be presented as a cut o| its l ow set and its high
set ( see chapter I4 . And agai n, it i s by presenting the result o| an
operationas a cut see chapter ! 5 ~ that i s, by uti l i sing the |unda-
mental theorem~ thatwe can handl e i nducti on. Lastl y, thecorrel a-
ti onexploredi nchapter ! 7 betweencoupleso|ordi nal sandordi nal s
pl aysa maj orrol einthi swhol eprocess~ asonemightexpect si nce
anoperationconnectstuoNumbers . Soasnotto|oregothesereca-
pitulations i n thought, we wi l l cover the essenti al s o|thedehnition
o|addition.
I8. 5. Thegeneralidea is as |ol l ows. given two NumbersN, andN,
we can make them correspond to two ordi nal s W[ and W si mpl y
bytaki ngthei rrespectivematters,W, M( NjandW M( N . We
know that a certai n ordi nal corresponds to these two ordi nal s vi a
the bi uni vocal |unction j, whi ch associ ates an ordi nal with every
couple (W, ,W) o| ordi nal s see 7. I 7 . This ordi nal wi l l hx the
'level' o| dehnition o|the additive operati on. we wi l l suppose that
addition i sdehned |or all couples o|Numbers N
,
andN
-
o|matter
W,andW
-
,suchthattheordi nal thatcorresponds vi ajtothecoupl e
(W, ,W
-
) is sma||er than the ordi nal associ ated with the coupl e
(W, ,W).Wethenproposeanexpl ici trule,whichwi l l dehnethesum
N, N on the basi so|sumso|thetypeN, N
-
,dehnedata l ower
ordi nal level .
Now, suchsumsaregiven by the sub-Numbers o|N, and N . A
sub-Number, beinga ' partiti on' o| a Number |or an ordi nal smal l er
thani tsmatter, has an i n|eri ormatter.
We can then pass on to the next stage, which i s the core o|the
constructi on. Take the Numbers N, and N, o|matter W, andW.
Consider a sub-Number N, /u, o| N, , and a sub-Number N,/u
-
o|
N. Now take the couples (u
,
,W), or (Wu
-
)
say that they are
lowerthanthecoupl e(W, ,W), by the rules o|order o|coupl es, and
remembering that u, and u
-
are respectively smal |er than W, and
W see I 7. 6 . Thi s is an excel lent exerci se |or the reader, but see
thenote.
,
Z0Z \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
As the |unction fis an i somorphi sm o| the order o| couples with
the order o|theordi nal s, we will also have.
f u

,W) e f W,

V,) ,
and
f W,

u
-
) e j WW, .
Whi ch i s t o say that tbe ordina| |ece| associated uitb cou|es
of Numbers of tbe tye (N[w,, N,), or (N,N,/w,) ui|| a|uays be
|ouer tban tbe ordina| |ece| associated uitb cou|es of Numbers
(N
|
N,).
Civen thi s |act, i n order i nductively to dehne the sum o|N, and
N,, we can suppose dehned sums o|the type N{u

-N, or N, -
N,/u
-
, which pertai n to a lowerordi nal level . We wi l l thus pass on
tothedehni ti on o| N, -N by |ormulatinga rule which assignsthe
val ue o|this sum on the basis o|the various val ues between N, and
N, on the one hand, the sub-Numbers o| N, and N, on the other.
The i mmanent concept o|sub-Number wi l l serve to underwrite the
i nducti on, which hxes their ordi nal level on the basis o| a coupl e
|ormed o|the matters o|thetwo Numbers underconsiderati on.
Fi nal | y, thestrategy wi l l mobi l isethe |undamental theoremo|the
cut. We will begin with the l ow set and the high set o| the two
Numbers N, and N,. We suppose dehned the sums o|each o|the
two Numbers with the sub-Numbers o|the l ow set and o|the high
set o| the other Number, according to a hxed combi nati on. These
sums can be assumed, because thei r ordinal level is lower. We can
thus obtai ntwo sets o|Numbers, and the sum o|N, andN,wi l l be
the uni que Numberdehned as cut o|thesetwo sets.
S. 6. lnductvc dchnton ol thc addton ol two ^umbcrs
' Levelzero' o|thei nductioncontai nsonlytheNumber 0, 0 . |ti sthe
only oneto have d as matter. We can thus posi t.
K L 1 0, 0 - 0, 0 0, 0 .
Wewi l l nowsupposet hat addi ti on is dehned |or al l levels lower
than an ordi nal W, that is, all levels corresponding to Numbers h,
and N
-
taken i nthatorder such that, their respecti ve matters being
W, and W
-
, it is thecasethatf W] ,V
-
e V.
Nowtakea coupl eo|NumbersN, andN,suchthat,thei rrespec-
tive matters being W, and W, , it i s the case that j WW, W. |n
other worJs a coupl eo|Numbers belongingto ordi nal level W.
PLLLP \ W\Lb Z0J
We have remarked that al l the couples o|type N, andN_/u, or
l[u andN_ , whereN{uandN_/uaresub-Numberso|N, andN,
belong to ordi nal levels i n|eri or to those o| the coupl e N, and N,
and there|ore i n|eriorto W.
It|ollowsthatwecansupposedehnedal l theaddi ti onso|thetype
N, -N,/u,orN{u -N .
We mustagree on an i mportantwritten convention here. We wi l l
writeN, -Lo N |ortbesetofNumbersconstitutedbyal l theresults
o|the addi ti ono|N, with each o|theNumbers o|the lowseto|N_
the low set o| N i s constituted, remember, o|al l sub-Numbers o|
N_ smal l er than N . | | Lo( N i s empty, the Number denoted by
N, - Lo N would be undehned we wi l l not consi der thi s i n the
calculations .
In the same way, we write N -Hi N |or the set o| Numbers
constituted by all the results o|the addition o|N, with each o|the
Numbers o|the high set o|N the high set o|N beingconstituted
byallsub-Numberso|N l argerthanN . Theconventionwi l l al ways
benotto botherwri ti ngthi s i |Hi N isempty.
Wewi l l adoptthesamenotati ontodesignatesetso|Numberswhi ch
result|romadditionsi mpl icatedi nLo( N -N , orHi ( N, -N_.
Additionwi l | thenbedehnedas|ol l ows. ontheonehandwe take
theseto|Numbers constituted by all the Numbers o|Lo Nj-N,
together with al l the Numbers o| N, -Lo N_ , on the other hand,
thesetconstituted byal l theNumberso|Hi ( Nj-N, togetherwi th
al l theNumbers o|N -Hi N . Inotherwords,we ' col lect' onone
si detheNumberswhi chare thesumo|N, andN andthe lowsub-
Numberso|theotherNumber,andontheothersi dethesamesums,
butwi ththehi gh sub-Numbers.
Wethusobtai ntwo sets o|Numbers,whichwecancal l L andH.
|ti snothardt oprove,bywayo|a ' i ncremental ' i nductionwhich
I leaveto one side,
-
that L and H are in a si tuati on o|a cut. every
Number o|L i ssmal ler than every Numbero|H.
Wethen uti l i sethe|undamental theorem chapter I 5 . Theresult
o| the addition o| N, and N wi l l be preci sel y the Number whi ch
makesacutbetweenthesesets, thati s, theuni queNumbero|mi ni mal
matter situated betweenthesets.
We posit.
L ( Lo Nj-N, N, -Lo( N
H Hi ( Nj-N, N + Hi ( N
KU Z N, -N LH, cuto| the two sets dehned above.
Z04 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
I 8. 7. Addton s commutatvc
In|act, this cut, whichsupposedl ydehnesthesum N -N operates
onthe same sets as thecutwhi ch dehnes l -N_, as onecan show
i nductively with nodi |hcul ty.
Itistrueatl evel 0, wherethere i sonl ythesum, certai nl ycommu-
tative,d -0.
Suppose thatthe sums o|ordi nal levels i n|eri orto j W, ,W_ W
are commutative. Then, in parti cul ar, the sumsLo N-N, or N, -
Lo N arecommutati ve. So the set L Lo Nj-N,, N, -Lo N, ,
whi ch serves t odehne N, -N, , i s composed o|the same Numbers
as the set L
'
Lo N - Nj, N, - Lo Nj , whi ch serve to dehne
N, -N, . Evidently, the samegoes |or the set H. Andconsequently,
N, -N, , being dehned by the same cut as N, -N, i s equal to it.
addition is commutative.
I 8. 8. Jhc ^umbcr 0, whch s morc prccscIy thc Numbcr 0, 0} , s
thc ncutraI cIcmcnt tor addton
It i s a questi on o| proving that, |or every Number N, N -d N.
Induction canthi sti mebe appl ied di rectl ytotheordi nal~matter o|
theNumbers.
|t i strue at l evel 0, si nce rule i prescri bes thatd -d 0.
Supposethatthi si strue|or al l theNumbers o|l owermatterthan
W, . In other words, |or every Number N o| matter N such that
u e W N -d N.
Now take a Number N, o| matter W, . Let' s exami ne the sum
N[ - 0. The sets L and H o| the cut which dehne the addition
are.
L Lo N -0, Lo O -Nj
H Hi Nj-0 , Hi O -N
utthel owsetandthehi ghseto| theNumber0 ~ that is, ( 0, 0
are empty ( 0hasno sub-Numbers . Theconventionsadoptedin I 8. 6
prohi bit us |rom taki ng i nto account the terms Lo O - N, and
Hi O -N . Sowe actual l y have.
L Lo N-0
H Hi Nj-0
ut Lo N and Hi N are composed o| sub-Numbers o| N_
and there|ore o|Numbers o| lower matter than W, . Consequently,
the hypothesi s o| i nduction appl ies to all the Numbers o| LoN
PLLLP \ W\Lb Z05
or o| Hi Nj. |or anysuch Number, s ayN{u, i t i s the case that
Ndu + 0 Nj /u -
We can, with a sl ight abuse o| notation, write thi s resu| t in the
|orm Lo N+ 0 Lo Nj, Hi N+ 0 Hi Nj. Sothat, u| ti mate|y,
L and H, whi ch dehne by a cut the sum N

+ 0, are no other than

Lo NandHi ( N. uttheNumberdehnedbyacutbetween its| ow
set and its high set i s preci se| y the Number N

itse| |, and so it i s
indeedthecasethatN[ -0 N[ -
The i nduction iscomp|ete. |or a NumberN, whatever its matter,
d i sa neutral e|ement |or addi ti on.
I 8. 9. Lvcry ^umbcr N apart lrom 0 aIIows thc Numbcr -^ as ts
nvcrsc lor addton. ^ -^j 0
An importantpoi nt. si nce~N inverts the|orm andtheresi due o|N,
tbe|ousetof -^is comosedoftbeNumbers-^/w, ubereN/wi sa
Numberfrom tbe bigb set ofN,andtbe bigb setof-N is comosed
oftbeNumbers-N/w,ubere^/w isaNumberfromtbe|ousetofN.
Asub-NumberN/uisinthelowseti|ui si nthe|orm,andi tisi nthe
highseti |uisi ntheresi due. Thesedetermi nati onswi l l bei nvertedin
-N. And,sinceeverythi ngthatprecedesui nN i salso i nverted what
wasi nthe|ormi si ntheresidue,andwhatwasi ntheresi duei si nthe
|orm , inadditiontotheexchangeo|thelowsetandthehighset,we
wi | | a|sohaveanexchangeo|thesigns o|posi ti ve andnegative.
|n an abuse o|notation, we could there|ore write the high set o|
~N as~ Lo N , andthe| owset o|~N as ~ Hi N .
Theresu| t seethe i nductivedehni ti ono| addi ti on i s thatthetwo
sets L and H which dehne by a cut the sum N - ~N are the
|ol|owing.
L ( Lo N + ( ~N , N + ( ~( Hi ( N
H ( Hi N + ( ~N , l + ( ~( Lo( N
So the strategy o| the proo| consists i n proving that al | the N
umbers o| L are negative and al | the Numbers o| H posi ti ve. The
resultisthat0issituatedbetweenL andHandthat,beingnecessari | y
o|mi ni ma| matter i nthatposi ti on, it is 0 thatoccupiesthe posi ti on
o|thecutbetween L andH. Consequent| y,N + ~N O.
MMA | | the sum N[ + N i s positive, i | N[ + N 0, then
~ N< N, and~ N < N

.
The |emmais trueatordi na| |eve| 0, becauseatthat|eve| itcannot
possi b| y bethecasethatNj -N O.
Z0 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
Suppose that it is true up to ordi na| |eve| W. |or every pai r o|
Numbers N
,
andN
-
suchthatj W,,W
-
e W,the property in ques-
ti onhol ds. | saythatitalso mustho| d|orevery pairo|NumbersN ,
andN, suchthatj WW W.
The sum N, - N, i s dehned by the cut LH. | | thi s cut is
positive, it is because set L contai ns positive Numbers,

or else the
cut wou| d be negative or nu|| see the argument on cuts i n 5. } .
As |or set H, i t onl y contai ns positive Numbers. Consequently,
there are Numbers in Lo Nj - N, or i n N, - Lo N, that are
positive, and all the Numbers o| Hi N, - N, or o| N, - Hi ( N_
are so.
Take |or example N, /u -N as a positive Number o| Lo( Nj +
N, . The pai r o| N, /u and N, is o| lower ordi na| |eve| than V, and
the |emma i sthere|oresupposedto betrueo|it. si ncethesumN{u
-N, i spositi ve, it i sthe case that~ N < N,/u, and, since N{u is
i nthel owseto|N iti sa |ortiorithecasethat~ N < N, . |nexam-
i ni ng the other components o| sets L and H, the | emma can be
estab| i shed in a| | general ity.
Now | et' s come back to the sum N - ~N . Consi der the set L
whi ch dehnes it by a cut, so.
L Lo N - ~N , N -( ~Hi ( N .
Suppose that there are positive Numbers i nL. Take |or examp|e
onesuch NumberN/u- ~N , whereN/ui s|romthe| owseto|N.
| nvi rtueo|the| emma, it i sthecasethat ~ ~N < N/u, soN < N/u,
whi ch is i mpossi b| esi nceN/u, being |rom the |ow set o|N, mustbe
sma| |erthanN. ||N - ~N{u is posi ti ve, N{u beingin the highset
o| P, it must be thecase thatN {u < N, which is prohi bi ted, si nce
N{u bel ongs tothehighset. We meetwith ani mpasse,and sothere
are no posi ti ve Numbers in set L.
Symmetrical deductionswoul ddemonstratethattherearenonega-
tive ornul l Numbers i n setH.
Fi na| | y, the cut L/H which dehnes the result o| the addition
N - ~N operatesbetween a setL o|negativeNumbersandasetH
o|posi ti veNumbers. TheNumbero|mi ni ma| mattersituatedbetween
these two sets i snecessari l y0, and soN - ~N O.
Sowecan saythat~ N isthei nverse o|N |or addition.
8. 0. Conhrmi ng that the additi on o| Numbers is associative i s,
as al ways, a ti resome calcul ati on. |t i s, it i s. . . To the extent that
we have estab| i shed that Numbers, endowed - so to speak ~ with
addi ti on dehned i nductive|y bythecut.
PLLLP \ W\Lb Z07
woul d |orm were it not |or the i nconsi stency o|thei r ' Al l ' . . . an
orderedcommutativegroup,o|whi chtheNumberZero either 0, 0
or0,i t' sal l thesame i stheneutral el ement.
To conhrm that the ' representatives' in our Numbers o| whole
positives and negati ves, rati onal s, real s, ordi nal s, are in |act these
numbersthemselves, but thought i n their being, we must prove that
addition in thenormal sense o|thesenumberscoi ncideswith addi -
ti ono|theirbeingasNumbers. Forexampl e, i |j andr, arenumbers
|romthereal held, andi |[ + _ r with ' cl assi c' addi ti on, thenthe
Numbers q _ and dehnedasNumberso|hnitematteroro|matter
as we presented them i n 6. Z7, are such that, addition being
dehnedi nductivel yas above, it i sal waysthecasethatj + r, .
Theseconhrmationso|algebraici somorphydemandno l ittlei nge-
nuity,aboveal| whenitcomestomul ti pl i cati on whichl abyrinthwe
will avoid entering into .
8. . I wi l l content mysel | wi th carryi ng out the verihcation |or
natural whol enumbers.
Remember |rom 6. 3 } thata natural whol enumbern presented
as Number is o|the |orm ( n, n , where n is a hni te ordi nal . Recal l
al so i bi d. that the | ow set o| n i s consti tuted by al l the whol e
Numbers lowerthan n, andthati tshighsetis empty.
Taketwonatural whol eNumbers n, ,nand( n,, n, . Thei rsumi s
|ormal l ydehned bythecut.
ut, as Hi njand Hi n are empty, the sums o|setH o|thecut
arenotdehned convention on thedehni ti on o|additi on, see 8. 6} .
Set H is there|ore empty, whi ch amounts t osayi ng thatt hes umi s
si mp| ytbe uper boundofsetL.
Si nce Lo( n is the set o|Numbers l owerthan n, , t hes umLo n
+ n, i s constituted byal l thesums d + n,, I + n,, . . . ( n, ~ I + n,.
And, in j ust the same way, n, + Lo n, is constituted by al l the
sumsn, + 0, n, + !, . . . , n, + n, ~ ! .
The l argest Numbero| these sums i s i n al l evi dence the Number
n + n,
~ ! .
Reasoning by inducti on. suppose that, up to the ordi nal rank
whichcorrespondsto the pai r o|Numbers n , n, so, i n real ity, the
Numbers n ,nand n,, n, , there|oreuptotheordi nal N f( n, , n_ ,
i t i s true that the sum o| wholes as Numbers wi l | bethe Number
Z08 \LP1\WPL L1LWb1\Wb
whi chcorrespondsto the norma| sum o|thewho|es. ln particu| ar,
that it i s true |or the pai rn , , t - I } , which is evi dent|y o|a lower
ordi nal rank than the pair n , ,n . |t i s there|ore to be supposed that
n , n - n - I } , n_ ~ ! the Numberwhich corresponds to the
ordi naryaddi ti ono|thenumbersn, and n - I } , thati s, theNumber
n , - n - I } , n , - tt - I } } , where the sign -denotes the ordinary
addition o| who| enumbers.
Nowwecome toseethatthel argest Number intheset L which
dehnes n, -n i s preci se| y n, - tt - I } . In vi rtue o|the hypothesis
o| i nducti on, thi s Number is the Number which corresponds to its
being written asan ordi nary addition~ theNumberwhichinscribes
the who| enumbern , -n_ - I .
Now, n j -n i nthesenseo|theadditiono|Numbersi stheupper
boundo|L. Andeveryupperboundi sa Numbero|thetype W,W ,
aswehavedemonstratedinI 5. 9. Theupperboundo|Lwi | | there|ore
bethesma| lestNumbero|thetype W, W tobesuperi ortothel argest
Numberi n L, whi ch is theNumber n , -n - I , tt , -n_ - ! ( where
the signs - and ~ have thei r traditional meaning, as when dea|ing
with numbers . This Number i s evident|y n , -n_,n , -n_ } , because
n , -n_ i sthe hnite ordi na| which comes i mmedi ate|y a|terthehnite
ordi na| n , -n - ! .
Consequentl y, the sum i n the Number sense o|the two who|e
Numbers n, and n i s the Numberthat represents the number sum
n, - n i n the number sense . The addition o| who| e Numbers is
i somorphic to thetradi ti onal addition o|who| enumbers.
Thetreatmento|who| enegativenumbersposesnogreatprob| em
ani nteresti ngexerci se . Thusitisconhrmedthatthewho|e positive
andnegative Numbers|orma commutativegroupisomorphictothe
additivegroup o|the ring o|the a|gebraicwho| enumbers.
The reader wi|l have grasped the essence o| operationa| proce-
dures. hnd a ' good' i nductivedehni ti ono|the| i nks, provethec| assi c
a| gebraic properties associ ati vity, commutativity, neutra| e|ement,
i nverse, di stri buti vity. . . , conhrm thatwhatone obtains i s i somor-
phi c, |or the c| assi ca| numbers represented in Numbers, to the
structures which these numbers are endowed with.
However| abori ousthesee||ortsmi ght be, they|eadto the desi red
conc| usi on. a| | thec| assic a|gebraicstructures the ring o|a|gebraic
who|e numbers,the he|d o|rationa| s, thehe| d J o|rea| s , andal |
the ' i nconsistent' a| gebras addition and mu| ti pl ication o| ordi na| s
are i somorphi c to thesubstructures di scerni b|e wi thi n Numbers.
And so it i s that a|l types o| numbers, without exception and
in thei r every di mensi on, are subsumed by the unique concept o|
Number.
LOHCl uS| OH
| ?
| H LOHCUSOH.
|tOH luHOCt tO t3HS- oCH_
I9. I . Number is neither a trait o| the concept, nor an operational
hcti on,neitheranempi ri ca| given,nora constitutiveortranscenden-
tal category, neither a syntax, nor a language game, not even an
abstraction|romourideao|order. Numberi su fLM Lf8eing. More
precisely,thenumbersthatwemani pul ate are onl ya ti nydeducti on
|romthei nhnite pro|usi ono|ei ngi nNumbers.
Essenti al l y, a Numberi sa |ragmentsectioned|roma natural mul -
ti pl icity,a mul ti pl icity thought, asordi na| , in i ts being qua being.
Thel inearordero|Numbers,| i kethei ralgebra,i sLM wayo|tra-
versingorinvestigatingthei rbei ng. Thi swayi sl abori ousandl i mited.
|texhi bitsNumberin a tightnetwork o|l i nks, whosethree pri nci pal
categoriesaresuccessi on, l i mi tandoperations. Thi si swherethei | | u-
si onari ses o|a structural orcombi natory bei ngo|Number. ut, i n
real ity,thestructuresareconsequences,|orourhni tethought,o|that
whichi slegiblei nNumberaspuremul ti pl icity. TheydeposeNumber
in a boundpresentationwhi chmakes us bel ievethatwe mani pul ate
it |i ke an obj ect. ut Number is not an obj ect. e|ore every bound
presentation, and i n the un-bound eternity o| its bei ng, Number i s
avai l able tothoughtasa |ormal section o|themul ti p| e.
We mi ght al so say that between Number, whi ch i nscri bes i ts
sectioni ntheunrepresentabl einconsistencyo|natural mul ti p|es, and
number, which we mani pu|ate according to structural l i nks, passes
thedi ||erence between eingandbeings. Numberi sthe pl ace o|the
bei ng qua bei ng, fL the mani pul abl e numerical ity o| numbers.
Numberek-sists i nnumberasthel atencyo|its bei ng.
Z Z L\WLL\b1\W
. Z. Thi s onl y makes it more remarkab|e, then, that we can have
some access to Number as such, even i| thi saccess sti l l i ndicates an
excess. that o| being over know|edges, an excess mani |est in the
numberl ess extent o|Numbers, compared to what we can know by
structuri ng the presentation o|types o|numbers. That mathematics
al l ows us at least to designate this excess, to accede to it, conhrms
theonto|ogica| vocationo|thatdi sci p| i ne. Thehi storyo|mathemat-
ics,|ortheconcepto|Numberas|oreveryotherconcept,i sprecisely
the history, intermi nabl e i n pri nci pl e, o| the rel ation between the
i nconsi stencyo|being assuch, and what ourthoughtcan makecon-
sistento|thi si nconsi stency. Mathematicsestabl i shesontologyasthe
hi storical si tuati on o| bei ng. |t progresses constantl y uitbin ontico-
ontologica| di ||erence, bringing to l ight, as the l atency o|the struc-
tures presented i n the ontological si tuati on, an excessi ve horizon o|
i nconsi stency,o|whi chstructuresareon| ye||ects|orahnitethought.
|ti sthistraj ectorywhichwehave reconstructedat oneo|itspoints.
that which designates, beyond numbers, the i nconsi stent multi ple-
eternity o| Numbers .
. 3. Number is thus rendered over to being, and subtracted |rom
the humani ty o|operationsorhgures o|order, whi chnevertheless it
continues to subtend i nthought. The task concerning Number, and
numbers, can onl y be to pursue the depl oyment o| their concept
withi n ontico-ontological di ||erence. Number |al l swi thi nthe excl u-
si vepurviewo|mathematics,at| eastso|arasthethi nkingo|number
i s concerned. Our phi l osophi ca| proj ect prescribes this exc|usi vity,
anddesignatesubereNumberisgi venastheresourceo|beingwithin
the l i mits o|a situation, the ontological ormathematical situation.
We must abandon the path o| the thi nki ng o| Number |o| l owed
by Frege or Peano, to say nothi ng o| Russell or Wittgenstei n. We
must even radi cal ise, overHow, thi nk up to the poi nto|di ssol uti on,
Dedeki nd' s or Cantor' s enterpri se. There exi sts no deduction o|
Number, it i s sol el y a question o| a hdel ity to that whi ch, i n its
i nconsi stent excess, i straced as hi storical consi stency i nthe intermi -
nabl emovement o|mathemati cal re|oundations.
Themoderni nstanceo|thi smovementatteststothevoi dandthe
i nhnite as materi al s |or thethi nki ngo|Number. Neverthe|ess, none
o|theseconceptscanbei n|erred|romexperience,nordotheypropose
themselves toanyi ntui ti on, orsubmi ttoany deducti on, evenatran-
scendental one. Noneo|themamountsto thc |orm o|an obj ect, or
o|obj ectivity. These concepts ari se |rom a dccision, whose written
|ormis the axi om, a deci si onthatreveal sthe openi ngo|a newepoch
|or the thought o|being qua bei ng. eing asks nothing more o|us,
\ W\c \ PWb- c |WL Z J
at this poi nt, than thatwe dogged|y pursue the i nscri ption~ wi thi n
a revi sedonto|ogica|si tuati on~ o|thatwhi ch, i ntraci ngthei ncon-
sistent latency o|bei ng, |ai th|u| l y prepares the rupture ata poi nto|
that p| ace where itconsi sts forus.
. 4. |tisthenpossi bl etomai ntai nthatthecontemporary ' banal i sa-
ti on' o| number is outside a| | thought. The reign o| number, the
portentso|whi chIdi scussedatthebegi nni ngo|thi sbook, isi ntran-
sitive to the mathematica| thought o|Number. It i mposes the |a| | a-
ci ousi deao|a bondbetween numeri ca| ity and va| ue, ortruth. ut
Number,whi chi saninstanceo|bei ngassuch, cansupportnova| ue,
andhasnotruthotherthanthatwhich i sgi ventoiti nmathematica|
thought, e||ectuating its hi storica| presentation |or us.
| |the reign o| number ~ i n opi ni on po| | s or votes, in nati ona|
accounts or in pri vate enterprise, i n the monetary economy, i n the
asubj ectivising eva| uation o| subj ects ~ cannot be authori sed by
Numberor bythethi nki ng o|Number, itis because i t|o| | ows |rom
thesi mp|e |awo|thesi tuati on,whi chisthe |aw o|Capita| . This| aw
assures, as does every | aw, the count-|or-one o|that whi ch i s pre-
sented in the situation, it makes our hi storica| situation consi st, but
itcannotmakeanyc| ai mtotruth. neithertoa trutho|Number, nor
to a truth which would under|ie that which Number designates as
|orm o|being.
|n our situati on, that o|Capi tal , the reign o|number is thus the
rei gno|theunthoughtsl averyo|numeri ca| i tyitsel |. Number,whi ch,
soit isc| ai med,under|ieseverythi ng o|va| ue, is inactua| |acta pro-
scription against any thinking o| number i tse| |. Number operates
as that obscure poi nt where the si tuati on concentrates its | aw,
obscure through i ts beingatoncesovereign and subtracted |rom a| |
thought,andeven|romeveryi nvestigationthatorientsitse| |towards
sometruth.
The resu| t is that al l thought necessari | y depl oys itsel |today in a
retreat with regard to the reign o| number, i nc| udi ngevery thought
thattri estomakea truth o|Number. Iti si nthi ssensethatwemust
hearken to Ma| | arme' s slogan, more perti nent than ever. that o|
restrainedaction.

This who|e meditation on the concept o| Number, because it

restores it to being, necessi tates the inversion o| the contemporary
j udgement such as it i s presented under the banner o|number. We
must say, against this j udgement, that notbing made into number is
o|va| ue. Orthateverythi ngthattraces,ina si tuati on, thepassageo|
a truth shal | be si gna| led by i ts i ndi ||erence to numeri cal i ty. Not so
thatthi s indi ||erencecan in its turn be made i nto a cri teri a, because
Z 4 L\WLL\b1\W
manyproj ects,havingno number, havenotrutheither. utthi sindi|-
|erence is a necessary subj ectivity.
Thereversesideo|the abundanceo|capita| istherarityo|truth,
in every order where truth can be attested to. science, art, politics
and |ove.
. 5. uti |thetruei s, onpri nci p|e,inoursituation,subtracted|rom
the rei gn o|number, whi ch is onl y a law o|thi s si tuati on, what is
the origin o|thi sprocess ?
A truthcandependnei therupon beingas such thi sis whyit does
not signa| itsel |througha Number noruponthecontemporarysitu-
ation, which i s that o| Capital thi s i s why it does not si gna| itse||
throughnumbers . Itsori gi ni seventa| . uttheeventi snotnon-being,
however much it exceedsthe resources o|situati on~bei ng. The best
way to say it woul d be that theevent i s o|the order o|trans-being.
atonce 'he|d' within the principle o|being anevent, l i keeverything
that i s, i s a multi pl e and in rupture with thi s princi ple ( the event
does not |al l underthe law o|thecounto|thesi tuati on,sothat, not
being counted, it does not consi st . Evental trans-being i s at once
mul ti pl eand' beyond' theOne~ or,asl havechosentocall it,ultra-
One. The possi bi l ity that there can be a truth, in a situation whose
state has whol l y succumbed to numbers, depends upon a hde|ity,
subtracted|romnumbers, to thi s ultra-One.
To thi nk Number, as we have tried to do, restores us, either
through mathemati cs, whi ch i s the hi story o| eternity, or through
some |aith|ul and restrai ned scrutiny o| ubat is baening, to a
supernumerary hazard |rom which a truth originates, always heter-
ogenous to Capi tal and there|ore to thesl avery o|the numerica| . |t
i s a questi on, at once, o| de| ivering Number |rom the tyranny o|
numbers,ando|re| easi ngsometruths|romi t. lnanycase,restrained
action is the pri nci pl eo|a remotedi sorder. itestab| i shesmathemati-
ca|ly that order i s but the a| l -too-human precarity o|a thi nki ng o|
the bei ng o| Number, it proceeds, e||ecti vel y and theoreti cal | y, to
the down|al l o| numbers, whi ch are thc l aw o| the order o| our
si tuati on.
' Li ke a god, | put in ordernei theronenortheother. . . '

lOtCS
r&n9&tOr9 r0&C0
I London. Continuum, Z005.
Z Mi nncapo| i s. Uni vcrsity o| Mi nncsota Ircss, Z00J.
J London. Continuum, Z004, in particu| ar, ch. 5, '1hc cing o|
Mumbcr`, rcprcscnts an cxtrcmc|y condcnscd g|oss o| thc prcscnt
work.
4 5cc |or cxamp|cch. Zn 4.
Lh&gt0r MuDD0r Pu9t 0 hOu@ht
I jOcdcki nd, k. , Was sinJ nnJ uus so//cn Jic Zu//cn raunschwcig.
I. Vicvcg, I 8 8 8 , Lng| i sh trans| ation 1/c Matnrc anJ Mcaning o[
Mnmcrs, in cman, W. W. cd. , trans . } , Lssays on t/c 1/cory o[
Mnmcrs La 5a| | c, IL. pcn Court, I 90 I , rcprintcd MY. Oovcr
I 96J . adi ou` src|crcncci sto thctrans| ati onby|. Mi | ncr,withI.
5inaccur' si ntroduction,Lcs lomrcs, quc son/-i/s c/ a qnoi scrtcn/-
i/sr Iari s. Mavarin, ! 979 . A| | rc|crcnccs givcn bc|ow arc to thc
numbcrcd scctions o|Ocdcki nd` s trcati sc. - trans. |
Z jaci L ant/ropos arit/mc/izci - ' man i s a|ways counting' - in
Ocdckind, ' Mumbcrs' , Irc|acc to thc hrst cdn. - trans. |
J j Marx and Lngc|s, Commnnist Mani[csto, trans| atcd by 5. Moorc,
with introduction and notcs by G. 5. |oncs London. Icngui n,
Z00Z} , p. ZZZ. - trans. |
Z W\Lb \ PLLb - l l
Lh&gt0r r00K MuDD0r &n0 PO00rn MuDD0r
I Consi dcr,|orcxamp| c, thc dchni ti ono|numbcrin Luc| i d` sL/cmcnts
ookVlI, dchnitionZ} . `Apt0|o:tv1Otk0VG0V ouycIcvov
x\q0o' . Wc might trans| atci tas|o| | ows. ' Annmbcrisa mu|ti tudc
composcdol uni ti cs. ` 1hc dchnition o|numbcr i ssccondary, bcing
dcpcndcnt upon that o| uni ty. ut what docs dchnition I , that o|
unity, say! OVG 801tV, KOUqV 8KO01OV 1tu V1uV 8V l|!10|:
' Uni ty is that by vi rtuc o|whi ch cach bcing i s said to bc onc. ` Wc
can scc i mmcdi atc| y what onto| ogi ca| substructurc is prcsupposcd
bythc mathcmatica| dchnition o|numbcr. thatthc nccanbc said
o|a bcing i n so |ar as it is.
Z j trait. scc ch. ZnJ. - trans. |
J j Conway, |. I. , Cn Mnmcrs anJ Camcs London Mathc-
mati ca| 5ocictyMonographsno. 6, London. AcadcmicIrcss, I 976 .
- trans. |
4 j Knuth, O. L. , Snrrca/ ^nmcrs Kcadi ng, MA. Addi sonWcs|cy,
I 974} . - trans. |
5 j Gonshor, I. , An |ntroJnction to t/c 1/cory oj Snrrca/ Mumcrs
London Mathcmatica| 5ocicty Lccturc Motc 5crics, I I 0, Cam
bridgc. Cambri dgc Uni vcrsi ty Ircss, I 986} . - trans. |
6 j 5incc thc | anguagc o| ' who|c' and ' natura| ` numbcrs is i n|orma|
and nota| ways app| i cdconsi stcnt|y, it is worthwhi | c to sct out thc
usagc o| thc prcscnt work, a| ong with thc |orma| mathcmatica|
cguiva|cnts.

u/o/c nnmcrs. 0, I , Z, J . . . thc non-ncgativc intcgcrs, " } .

B
natnra/ u/o/c nnmcrs. I , Z, J . . . thc posi ti vc i ntcgcrs, +} .
B
'rc/atitc ' u/o/c nnmcrs. . . . -J, Zg -! , 0, I , Z, J . . . thc i ntc
gcrs, } . - trans. |
7 n thc di a|cctic - consti tuti vc o| matcria| i st thought - bctwccn
a|gcbraic and topo|ogical ori cntati ons, thc rcadcr is rc|crrcd to my
1/coric Jn Snjct Iari s. 5cui | , I 98Z , pp. ZJI -49.
8 j 5cc ourbaki , M. , |/cmcnts Jc mat/cmatiqnc, Litrc l. 1/coric Jcs
cnscm/cs Iari s. Icrmann, I 954} , Lng| ish cdn L/cmcnts o[ Mat/-
cmatics, Vo| I. 1/cory oj Scts Kcadi ng, MA. Addi son-Wcs|cy,
I 96 8 } . - trans. |
9 1hc thcmc o|thc cut, in its conccpt and its tcchni quc, is trcatcd i n
chaptcr I5 o| thi s book.
I 0 j 5cc Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, 7J. - trans. |
I I j |rcgc, Gott|ob, Oic CrnnJ/aycn dcr Arit/mcti/. inc /ogisr/-
matcmutisc/c Lntcrsnc/ony ncr Jcn cgrijj Jcr La// rcs| an,
! 8 84} , 1/c lonnJations oj Arit/mctic, Lng| i sh trans| ation by|. L.
Austi nZnd rcviscdcdn,x|ord. |ackwc| | , ! 974 . Kc|crcnccsgivcn
W\Lb \ PLLb l l - l 6 Z | 7
bc|owarctothcnumbcrcdsccti onso|Ircgc` stcxt.1hchrstGcrman
cdnappcarcd i n I 884. - trans. |
IZ j 5cc Ircgc, lonnJations, ] Z8-]Z9. - trans. |
IJ |oraparticu| arl ybri c|i ntroductiontot hcdi ||crcnttypcso|numbcrs
whi charcuscdi nmodcrnana| ysi s, rc|cr|or cxamp| cto|. Oicudon-
nc` sl/cmcnts J'ana/ysc, |. lonJcmcnts Jc / 'ana/ysc moJcrnc Iari s.
Gauthi crVi | | ars, Jrdcdn, I 98 I } , chs I -4.
!4 jnniqnc nomrc qni nc pcnt pas Hrc nn antrc. Irom Ma| | arm' s
` Un Coup dc ds j amai s n` abo| i ra | c hasard` , trans|atcd in L. I.
|ackmorcandA. M. |ackmorc,Co//cctcJ |ocms anJ Ct/cr \crsc
x|ord. x|ord Uni vcrsi ty Ircss, Z006} , pp. I 6 I-8 I as 'A di cc
throw at any ti mc ncvcrwi | | abo| i shchancc' trans|ati on modi hcd} .
- trans. |
! 5 Matacha Michc| proposcs thc di sti nction bctwccn ' hrst modcrni ty`
and ' sccond modcrni ty' i n L'|nstant pcrsnasij Jn roman Iari s. Lcs
Con|rcnccs du Icrroquct, I 987} .
I 6 Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, ] 64.
I 7 Igivca dctai |cdcommcntaryonthcIcgc| i anconccpto| numbcr- a
posi ti vc vi rtuc o| which is that, accordi ng to i t, thc i nhni tc is thc
trutho|thc purcprcscncc o|thchni tc - i nmcdi tati on I 5 o|L'Ltrc
c/ /'ctencmcn/ Iari s. 5cui | , I 988 , pp. I 8 I -90 j pp. I 6 I-70 i n
| ivcr Ic|tham' s Lng| i sh trans| at|on cing anJ Ltcnt London.
Conti nuum, Z005} . - trans. |
I 8 j 5cc Ircgc, lonnJations, ] 84-] 86. - trans. |
I 9 j Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, ] Z. - trans. |
Z0 j Ircgc, lonnJations, ] 74. - trans. |
ZI jOcdcki nd, Mnmcrs, ] 7J. - trans. |
ZZ j 1ont. - trans. |
ZJ j Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, ] 66. - trans. |
Lh&gt0r Z r0@0
I 1hc kcy tcxt |or Ircgc' sconccpti on o| numbcr is 1/c lonnJations
o[ Arit/mctic jon which scc abovc, ch. I n I I - trans. ] . 1hc |unda-
mcnta| argumcnt, cxtrcmc|y dcnsc, occupi cs paragraphs 55 to 86
|css thanth| rty pagcs i nthcci tcd cdi t|on} . Wc mustsa| utc C| audc
Imbcrt`s cxcc| | cnt work, i n particu|ar hcr |cngthy i ntroducti on.
j adi ou rc|crs to Imbcrt' s trans| ati on Lcs lonJcmcnts dc
/'arit/mciqnc Iari s. 5cui | , I 969} . - trans. |
Z j tontc pcnscc cmct nn conp Jc Jes. Ma| |arm, ' Coupdc ds` , p. I 8 I .
- trans. |
Z 8 W\Lb \ PLLb l 6-23
J j 5cc |rcgc, lonnJations, ] ] 46-5J. adiou rcndcrs Ircgc' s Ligcn-
sc/ajt as trait. A| though Austin has ` propcrty, ` I havc uscd ' trait`
hcrc, so as not to |osc thc di sti nction prcscnt in adi ou` s tcxt
bctwccn trait and proprictc. - trans. |
4 j In Austi n' s Lng| i sh trans| ati on, Ircgc` s tcrm C/cic/za/ig is rcn-
dcrcd as ' cqua| ' , but scc Austi n` s notc at ] 67on possib| c a| tcrna-
tivcs.I|o| | owbothAusti n` sadviccandadi ou` susco|cqninnmcricitc
incmp|oyingcqninnmcratc as thc tcrmwhi chavoidsatoncci mprc-
cision and ug|y nco|ogism. - trans. |
5 j Ircgc, lonnJations, ] 68 . - trans. |
6 j I bi d. , ] 74. - trans. |
7 j Ibi d. , ] 77. - trans . |
8 j Ibi d. - trans. |
9 j Ibi d. , ] 74. - trans. |
I0 j Ibi d. - trans. |
I I j Ibi d. - trans. |
I Z 1hc |cttcr writtcn i n Gcrman i nwhi ch Kussc| | makcs known to
Ircgc thc paradox that wou| d takc thc namc o|its author is rcpro
duccd in Lng|ish trans|ation in lrom lrcgc to CoJc/, a co| | cction
o| tcxts cditcd by |. van Icij cnoort Cambri dgc, MA. Iarvard
Univcrsity Ircss, 4th cdn, I 98 I } p. I Z4. Kussc|| conc| udcs with an
i n|orma| di stinctionbctwccn'co| | cction` j or' sct` , Gcrman Mcngc -
trans. | and'tota| i ty` . ' Iromthi sj thcparadox| , I conc|udcthatundcr
ccrtai ncircumstanccs a dchnab|c co||cction j Mcttgc| docs not |orm
a tota| i ty. `
I J Zcrmc| o dcvc|ops hi s sct-thcorctica| axi omati c, i nc| uding thc
axi om o|scparati on, whi ch rcmcdics Kussc| | ` sparadox, in a ! 908
tcxt wrtttcn i n Gcrman. It can bc |ound i n Lng| i sh trans|ation i n
van Icij cnoort' s co||cction, citcd i n t hc prcccding notc. It comcs
|rom |ntcstiyations in t/c lonnJations oj Sct 1/cory, and cspc
ci a| | y rts hrst part, ' Iundamcnta| Ochnitions and Axioms` , pp.
Z0 ! -6.
I 4 j Ircgc, lonnJations, ]58. - trans. |
I 5 1hcsubordinationo|thccxi stcnti a| quantihcrtothcuni vcrsa|quan-
ti hcr mcans that, givcn a propcrty I, i | cvcry possib| c x posscsscs
this propcrty thcnthcrccxistsanx whichposscsscsi t. Inthc prcdi-
catc ca|cu| us. Vx I x ~ 3x l x . 1hc c|assica| ru|cs and axioms
o|prcdicatc ca| cu| us pcrmit onc to dcducc this i mp| ication. C|. |or
cxamp| c L. Mcndc|son` s manua| |ntroJnction to Mat/cmatica/
Logic MY. Van Mostrand, I 964} , pp. 70-I .
I 6 jt Q OI1 VO8V 8O1tV 18 KO| 8VO|, |rom larmcnidcs' pocm.
- trans. |
W\Lb \ PL cb 24-3 0 Z
Lh&gt0r J 00tOn& MOt0 On
& LOnt0DgOr&r L9&@0 O r0@0
I Mi | l cr` s tcxt appcars in Ca/icrs ponr / 'ana/ysc, no I Iari s. 5cui | ,
Icbruary I 966} , pp. J7-49 j trans| atcd by |acquc| i nc Kosc as
' 5uturc Llcmcnts o| thc Logic o| thc 5i gni hcr ` i n Scrccn, I 8. 4
I 978 } , pp. Z4-J4. - trans. | . nc ought to rcad a| ong with it Y.
Ouroux` s arti c| c 'Isycho|ogic ct | ogi quc` appcaring i n thc samc
i ssuc pp. J I -6} , whi chcxami ncsi ndctai | thc succcssor|uncti on in
|rcgc.
Z C|. A. adiou, ' Marquc ct manquc. A propos du Zro` , in Ca/tcrs
ponr / 'ana/ysc, no I 0 Iari s. 5cui | , I 969 , pp. I 50-7J.
J _'y snis, j 'y snis tonjonrs. Irom Ki mbaud' s I 87Z pocm ` _n'cst-cc
ponr nons, mon conr, qnc /cs nappcs Jc sang` j trans| atcd in Co/-
/cctcJ |ocms, cd. and trans. | i vcr crnard London. Icngui n,
I 986} , pp. Z0Z-J. - trans. | .
4 j Mi | |cr, ' 5uturc` , p. 40. - trans. |
5 j mcconnnc. - trans. |
6 j Mi | |cr, ' 5uturc' , p. 40. 1rans| ation modi hcd. - trans. |
` j Ibi d. - trans. |
8 j 5cc Ircgc, lonnJations, ] ] Z6-Z7. - trans. |
9 j Mi | | cr, ' 5uturc` , p. 44. - trans. |
I 0 j Ibi d. p. 46. - trans. |
I I j Ibi d. p. 47. 1rans| ati on modi hcd. - trans. |
! Z j Ibi d. p . 4J. - trans. |
I J j | 'instancc Jc |a |cttrc. - trans. |
I4 j I bi d. p. 44. - trans. |
I 5 n thc typo|ogy o| oricntations i n thought, c. Mcdi tation Z 7 o|
L'Ltrc ct / 'ctencmcnt, pp. J I I -I 5 jpp. Z8 I -5 i nthcLng| i shtrans|a-
ti on. - trans. | .
I 6 Mi | | cr, ' 5uturc` , p. 40. 1rans| ation modihcd. - trans. |
I 7 j Ibi d. p . 4 I . - trans. |
I 8 j Ibid. p . 47. 1rans|ation modi hcd. - trans. |
! 9 j ' Matricc' , i n Crnicarr 4 I 975 , trans| atcd by Oani c| G . Co| | i nsi n
Lacantan |n/ I Z |a| | , I 997} . pp. 45-5 I . - trans. |
Z0 j Mi | |cr, ' 5uturc,` p. J9. - trans. |
ZI j jonrmt//cmcnt. i | not |or i ts un|ami | i ari ty, thc morc di rcct
ctymo|ogi ca| cqui va|cnt o| thc psychi atri c tcrm jormtcation,
dcsignating a pri ckl ing or ti ng| i ng as o| ant s craw| i ng ovcr thc
ZZ0 W\Lb \ PLLb 3 0-4 l
ski n, might carry |css o| an inappropriatc scnsc o| dynamic
sc| |-organisation than ' swarming' . rathcr than i mp|ying any
vita| movcmcnt, adi ou` s jonrmi//cmcnt sccms to dcnotc ` our'
phcnomcno|ogica| rcgi strationo|thcicy'constc| | ati ons` o|Mumbcr.
- trans. |
ZZ Ior cxamp| c L. orc| , ` La Ihi|osophic mathcmati quc ct | ` i nhni ` ,
Kctnc Jn mois, !4 I 9! Z} , pp. Z! 9-Z.
Lh&gt0r 9 000Kn0
! 1hc rc|crcncctcxt|or Ocdcki nd' sdoctrinc o| numbcris 1/c Matnrc
anJ Mcaning ofMnmcrs j scc ch. 0n ! abovc - trans. | 1hc hrst
Gcrman cdi tion was pub| i shcd in I 8 8 8 .
Z j Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, ! . - trans. |
J j Ibi d. , Z. - trans. |
4 j I bi d. , Z l -Z5. - trans. |
5 j Ibi d. , Z6-J5. - trans. |
6 j Ibi d. ! . - trans. |
j Ibi d. J. Ocdcki nd` s tcxt has whcrc adi ou uscs j - trans. |
8 Wc mi ght say that Ircgc i s a Lci bni zi an, Icano a Kanti an, and
Cantor a I|atonici an.
1hc grcatcst |ogician o| our ti mcs, Kurt Gdc|, considcrcd that
thc thrcc most i mportant phi | osophcrs wcrc I|ato, Lci bniz and
Iusscr| - this |ast, i | onc might say so, ho|ding thc p| acc o|
Kant.
1hcthrccgrcat qucstionsposcdby mathcmaticswcrcthus.
! thcrca|ityo| thcpurci ntc| | igib|c,thcbcingo| thatwhich math-
cmatics thi nks I| ato ,
Z t hc dcvc|opmcnt o| a wc| | -|ormcd |anguagc, t hc ccrtitudc o|
in|crcncc, thc |aws o|ca| cu| ati on Lci bni z ,
J thc constitution o| scnsc, thc uni vcrsa| ity o| statcmcnts Kant,
Iusscr| .
9 j 5cc Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, Irc|acc to thc hrst Ldn. - trans. |
I 0 j Ocdcki nd, Mnmcrs, 64n. - trans. |
I I j Ibi d. - trans. |
! Z j Ibi d. , 66. Ocdcki nd' s tcxt has whcrc adiou has j, and a,
rathcr than b g b_. - trans. |
I J j a - a| so ' i d` . - trans. |
W\Lb \ PLLb 46-5 2 ZZ |
Lh&gt0r 0&nO
1hc rc|crcncc tcxt |or Icano i s a tcxt pub| i shcd i n Latin in I 889,
whosc Lng| i sh ti t| c i s. '1hc Iri nci p|cs o| Ari thmctic` . 1hc Lng| i sh
trans|ation o| thi s tcxt i s |ound i n |. van Icij cnoort cd. , lrom
lrcgc to CJc/, pp. 8J-97.
Z j Ibi d. , p. 85. - trans. |
J j Ibi d. - trans. |
4 1his passagc is takcn |rom a |cttcr |rom Ocdcki nd to Kc|crstci n,
dating |rom I 890. 1hc Lng| i sh trans| ation can bc |ound in van
Icij cnoort cd. , lrom lrcgc to CJc/, pp. 98-I 0J.
5 j Van Icij cnoort cd. } , lrom lrcyc to CJc/, p. 85. - trans. |
6 j1it|c o| Iusscr| ` s I 9 ! I ' mani |csto' , trans|atcd in Q. Laucr cd. } ,
l/cnomcno/ogy anJ t/c Crtsts oj |/t/osop/y Mcw York. Iarpcr,
I 9 I 0} . - trans. |
7 jVan Icij cnoort cd. , lrom lrcgc to CJc/, p. 85. - trans. |
8 j Ibi d. , p. 85. - trans. |
9 j Ibid. , p. 94. - trans. |
!0 j Ibid. - trans. |
I I j Ibi d. Axiom 6} . - trans. |
IZ jjrotdc J'on/t ct JcsnctnJc, nnc Constc//atton. Ma| | arm,'Coupdc
ds` , p. I 8 I . - trans. |
IJ Kcgarding thcsc qucstions, onc mi ght rcad thc purc| y historica|
chaptcr I 0 o| Kobi nson, A. Mon-StanJarJ Ana/ysts Amstcrdam.
MorthIo| | and, rcvi scd cdn I 974} . Kobi nson rccogni scs that
' 5ko|cm` sworkonnon-standardmodc|so|Arithmcticwasthcgrcat
cstsi ng|c|actori nthccrcationo|Mon5tandardAna| ysi s` p.Z78 .
Ior a phi| osophica| commcntary on thcsc dcvc|opmcnts, c|. A.
adiou, ' Inhni tcsima| 5ubvcrsion' , i n Ca/tcrs ponr /'anu/ysc, no 9
Iari s. 5cui | , I 968 } pp. I I 8-J7.
I4 j a - trans. |
Lh&gt0r L&ntOr
'Y0-Lr00r00n099 &n0 th0 Lr0 n&9
I Cantor`sc|carcst articu|ation o| hi sordina| conccption o| numbcrs
is |ound i n an I 899 |cttcr to Ocdcki nd. 5ccthc Lng| i shtrans|ation
o|thckcypassagcso|this|cttcri nvanIci j cnoort cd. , lrom lrcyc
to CJc/, pp. I I J-I 7. Cantordcmonstratcs an cxccpti ona| | uci di ty
as to thc phi |osophica| |y crucia| di stinction bctwccn consistcnt
ZZZ W\Lb \ PLLb 5 2-0
mu| ti p| iciticsandi nconsistcntmu| tip| iciti cs. Iti stohi m, i n|act,that
wc owc this tcrmi no| ogy.
Z n thi s poi nt, you arc natura| | y rc|crrcd to thcwork o|A|cxandcr
Koyr.
Lh&gt0r r&n9tV0 Putg Ct09
! jprcncz cnscm/c - wi ththci ntcndcd rcsonancc o| cnscm/c ' sct` .
- trans. |
Z j Jeconpc. a 'carvingout` or dcducti on. - trans. |
Lh&gt0r NOn M0uD&nn Lr0 n&9
I ohnvonMcumanngavca dchni ti ono|ordi na| si ndcpcndcnto|thc
conccpt o| wc||ordcrcdncss |or thc hrst timc in a I 9ZJ Gcrman
artic|c, cntit| cd ' n thc i ntroduction o| transhni tc numbcrs` . 1hi s
artic|c is rcproduccd in Lng| i sh trans| ati on in van Hci j cnoort cd. ,
lrom lrcgc t o CJc/, pp. J46-54.
1hc dchni ti on o| ordi na| s on thc basi s o| transi ti vc scts sccms to
havcbccn takcn up agai n in an artic|c in Lng| i sh pub| i shcd in I 9J7
byKaphac| M. Kobi nson,cntit|cd'1hcthcoryo| c|asscs,a modihca-
ti on o| von Mcumann` s systcm' ]onrna/ o[ Symo/ic Logic, no Z,
pp. Z9-J6 .
Z 1hroughoutthi sbook, thcordi na| s, dcnotcd in currcnt| i tcraturcby
thc Grcck |cttcrs, wi | | bc dcnotcd by thc cttcrs W and [g supp|c-
mcntcd|urthcronwithnumcrica| i ndiccs,W_ orM_ ctc.Ingcncra| ,
W or N dcsi gnatc a variab|c ordi na| any ordi na| whatcvcr . In
parti cu| ar, wc cmp|oy thc cxprcssion ' |or cvcry ordi na| W` . 1hc
notati onwith i ndiccs i s uscd to dcsignatca particu| arordi na| , asi n
thccxprcssion' takcordi na| W whi chi sthcmattcro|MumbcrM, ` .
1hc subscripts wi | | bcuscd most o|tcn to thc | c|t o|thc si gn E to
dcsi gnatc an ordi na| whi ch is an c| cmcnt o| anothcr, as [j E W
ordi na| M[ is an c|cmcnt o| ordina| W .
J j /a Matnrc as opposcd to natnrc) . - trans. |
4 Jhc Axiom o|Ioundati on, a| soca| | cdthc Axiomo|Kcgu| ari ty,was
anticipatcd by Mi ri mano|| i n I 9 ! 7, and |u| |y c|ari hcd by von
Mcumann i n I 9Z5. 1o bcgin with, it was a mattcr, abovc a||, o|
c| i mi nati ng what Mi ri mano|| ca| | cd 'cxtraordinary scts` , that i s,
thoscwhi ch arc c|cmcnts o|thcmsc|vcs orcontai n ani nhni tcchai n
o|thctypc. . . E a,, , E a, E e e e E a E M E L. Itwas rca| i scd onl y
W\Lb \ PLLb 0-2 ZZJ
|atcrthatthi saxi omcnab| cda hi crarchica| prcscntationo|thcuni
vcrsc o|scts.
|or a hi storica| and conccptua| commcntary on this axiom, c|.
A |racnkc| , Y. arIi | | c| and A. Lcvy, lonnJattons oj Sct 1/cory
,Amstcrdam. MorthIo| | and, Znd cdn I 97J} , pp. 86-I 0Z.
|or a phi | osophica| commcntary, scc Mcdi tation I 8 o| L'Ltrc
ct / 'ctcncmcnt, pp. Z05-I I j pp. I 84-90 in thc Lng| i sh trans| ati on.
- trans . ] .
5 A good prcscntation o| thc |act that bc| onging e } ordcrs thc
ordi na| s tota| | y strict ordcr} - in othcr words that, givcn two
di ||crcnt ordina|s W, and W,, cithcr W, e W, or W, e W, -
can bc |ound in 5hocnhc| d, |. K. , Mat/cmattca/ Logtc Kcadi ng,
MA. Addi sonWcs|cy, I 967} , pp. Z46-7. 1his proo| is rcproduccd
and commcntcd upon in L'Ltrc ct / 'ctcncmcnt i n thc third scction
o| Mcditation I Z, pp. I 5J-8 jpp. I J4-9 i nthc Lng| i sh trans|ation.
- trans. | .
6 j Jcconpcr. - trans. |
Lh&gt0r buCC099 On &n0 L Dt. h0 n nt0
I adiou,A. , Mantjcstc ponr /a p/t/osop/ tc, Iaris. 5cui | , I 98 9 j trans-
| atcd by M. Madarasz as Mantjcs/o jor |/t/osop/y A| bany, MY.
5tatc Univcrsi ty o| Mcw York Ircss, I 999} . - trans . | . 1hc ci rcum
stanccs and thc c||ccts o| thc phi | osophy`s suturc to thc pocm,
bcginning wi th Mi ctzschc and Ici dcggcr, arc dcscribcd brichy in
chaptcrVII, cntit|cd '1hc Agco|Iocts` .
Z j si pMandc|stam, |rom hi s 1rtstta I 9ZZ} . adi ou quotcs1atiana
Koy's |rcnch trans| ati on. tcrs ccs prutrtcs tnntcs ou |c tcmps
s 'arrctc. - trans . | . 1hc i nstant o| Ircscncc is bcyond a|| i nsistcncc,
a| | succcssi on. 1hc 'ctcrna| midday` i s thc trans-tcmpora| |imit o|
timc. Icrc i s thcconj oint sitc o|thc pocm and thc sacrcd.
Itisnota| waysi n thi sp|acc, i tmustbc sai d, thatMandc| stams' s
pocms cstab| i sh thcmsc|vcs. |or in hi s most powcr|u| poctry hc
sccks to thi nkthcccntury, and succccds i ndoi ngso.
Lh&gt0r 0Curr0nC0, Or n0uCtOn
I |or thc dcmonstration o| thc va| i di ty o| dchni ti ons by i nduction,
you arc rc|crrcd to K. |. Ocv| i n` s lnnJamcnta/s oj Contcmporary
Sct 1/cory MY. 5pri ngcr-Vcr|ag, I 980} , pp. 65-70 '1hcprincip|c
o|rccursi on` } .
ZZ4 W\Lb \ PLLb l 0
Lh&gt0r l Z h0 LOnC0gt O MuDD0r
n bV0nt& MOD n&tOn
I Jo rcpcat, thc basic tcxt|or thc study o| thcnumbcrsca| | cd ' surrc
a| s' i s Gonshor` s |ntroJnctton to t/c 1/cory oj Snrrca/ Mnmcrs
j sccch. In5 trans . | . 1hc |act thatGonshoranda| | currcntthcorists
o| thcsc numbcrs, which I ca| | Mumbcrs, scc thcm as a ' macro
hc| d` o| thc rca| s rcsu|ts in a prcscntation quitc di ||crcnt |rom my
own.
1hc i nita| idca o| thci r crcator, Conway, was to dchnc ' surrca| '
numbcrs di rcct|y by mcanso|cuts. A numbcr wi | | bc dchncd as a
pai r o| two sc/s o| numbcrs, con|orming to thc conditions o| thc
cut cvcry numbcrinthcsct ' to thcright` in thc pair i s sma||cr than
cvcry numbcr in thc sct 'to thc | c|t ' } . 1hc doub| ccircu|arity o|this
dchnition obvious|y must bc qucstioncd numbcr i s dchncd on thc
basis o| numbcr, and i ncqua| i ty bctwccn numbcrs i s mcntioncd
without havi ngbccnpropcr|ydchncd} . 1hc opcration thatscrvcsto
undo thi s circ|c is obvious|y transhni tc induction, which makcs
ordi na| s appcar i ncvi tab| y on thc sccnc. I n |act, Conway prcscnts
Mumbcrs on thc basiso|thcir canonica| rcprcscntation- thati s, i n
my | anguagc, thci r ' structura| ' charactcr. thcy arc dchncd on t/c
asts o[ t/ctr sn-Mnmcrs. O. L. Knuth` s book Snrrca/ Mnmcrs
Kcadi ng, MA. Addison-Wcs|cy, I 974 givcsa 'pcdagogica| ` vcrsion
o|Conway's prcscntation i nthc|ormo|a dia|oguc. Itsccksto rcc-
rcatc thc mcnta| ity o| a ` rcscarchcr` into thc mattcr, but i n |act
bccomcs quitc convo| utcd, si ncc in its cxposition thc cmp|oymcnt
o| thc ordi na| scrics i s not madc cxp|icit. csidcs thi s, it rc-
cstab| i shcs, to my mi nd to thc dctri mcnto| thc rca| 'gcni us' o|thc
invcntion o| Mumbcrs, a crcationist and progrcssivc |ogic hrst
'crcating' zcro, thcn i and -I , ctc.
Gonshor starts |rom a | itcra| ' coding` , whcrcas, i n my qucst |or
thcconccptanditsphi |osophica|dcp|oymcnt,Ij oi na sctthcorcti ca|
| i ncagc. 1cchnica| | yspcaki ng, Gonshorgcncra| i scsthcdcvc|opmcnt
i n basc Z o|thc rca| numbcrs. A rca| numbcr can bc prcscntcd as
aninhnitcdcnumcrab| cscricso|signs I and0. Gonshor' sidca isto
considcr such scrics oj any ordtna/ /cngt/ u/atsoctcr, rathcrthan
| i mi tingthcm to dcnumcrab|c scrics. Ic thcn bcgins with twosigns
+ and-,andca||s' surrca|numbcro|| cngthW` a scricso|suchsigns
i ndcxcdtothcc| cmcntso|thcordi na| W. 1hcindcxordi na| sa||cctcd
by thc sign+ corrcspond to thc c|cmcnts o|what I ca|| thc |orm o|
thc Mumbcr, and thc indcx ordi na| s a||cctcd by thc sign -, to thc
c|cmcnts o|thc rcsi duc. Jhc ordi na| ' | cngth' corrcsponds to what I
ca| | thc mattcr o| thc Mumbcr.
Asancxamp|c. thcMumbcrwhichI writc 4, 0, J , whoscmattcr
i s 4 and whosc |orm contai ns thc c|cmcnts 0 and J, i s writtcn by
Gonshor as |o||ows. + - - +.
W\Lb \ PLLb l 0- l 3 0 ZZ5
Mow, o| coursc surrca| numbcrs and Mumbcrs arc ' thc samc
thing` . ut wc might say that Gonshortrcats thcm as i nscriptions,
or marki ngs, a|tcr thc manncr o| Ircgc and o|Icano` s ari thmctic.
Jhcinspirationhcrci si dcographi c. WhcrcasIapproachthcm|rom
thc poi nt o| vicw o| thcir mu| tip|c-bcing, in thc Cantorian spirit,
my inspiration bcingonto|ogica| , or I|atonic.
In |act cvcn thc tcchnica| dcvc|opmcnt cnds up bcing quitc di |-
|crcnt, a|though thc rcsu|ts can a| ways bc trans| atcd |rom onc
vcrsion to thc othcr. Ior cxamp|c, i t is not i nsi gni hcant that
Gonshor, who, with thc signs + and -, is unabl c to dcnotc an
occurcncc o| thc voi d, must i nvokc an ' cmpty scri cs' o| signs,
whcrc I woul d wr| tc 0,0 . 1hc conccptua| advantagc o| thc
onto|ogica| approach to Mumbcr is that it a| |ows onc to di spcnsc
with a| | additiona| | i tcra| i sation, with cvcry hctcrogcncous sign,
in |avour o| thc two |undamcnta| sctthcorctica| rc|ations o|
bc|onging E and inc| usion L. 1his doubt|css cxp| ai ns why |or
Gonshor thc thcory o| surrca| numbcrs is a sort o| spcci a| i st
tcchniquc, whcrcas |or mc it is a who||y natura| cxtcnsion o| thc
onto|ogica| vocation o| sct thcory to thc conccpt o| Mumbcr.
Z Gonshor, |ntroJnction, p. 4J.
J j Jcconpc. trans. |
Lh&gt0r J 0r0nC0 &n0 Lr00r O MuDD0r9
! 1hroughout thi s book, I ca|| a rc|ation most o|tcn onc o| ordcr}
'tota| ' whcn two Jtj[crcnt basi c tcrms o| thc rc| ation arc a| ways
boundbythi src| ati on. 1husI wou| dsaythatthcrc|ation E i stota|
in thc ordina|s or that thc rc|ation E i s tota| in thc Mumbcrs.
5omcti mcs a rc| ation is ca| | cd ' tota| ` which is a| so rchcxi vc,
binding cach tcrm to itscl |. 1his i s thc casc, |or cxampl c, with thc
rc|ation s |css than or cqnu/ to |or thc natura| who|c numbcrs.
Limiting oncsc||to my dchnition, which on| y dcmands thc rc|a
tion bctwccn di ||crcnt tcrms, and cxc| udcs thc rc|ationo|sc| |with
sc| | ani rrchcxivcrc|ation,thcn} , i smorcconvcnicnti nthccascwc
arc dca| i ngw| th. Whcrcwc spcak o|anordcr-rc|ation, wc mcan to
say that its axioms arc thosc o|strtct ordcr.
Z IorGonshor,ordcriscasi|yprcscntcdas |cxicographica| , sinccsurrca|
numbcrs arc introduccd as scrics o|signs+ and
~
c. ch. ! Zn ! ) .
J nthispoint,c. Mi | | cr, |. C. Licrtcs, Lcttrc, Muttcrc Iari s. Con
|rcncc du Icrroquct,|unc ! 985) .
4 j Iau| Cc|an, |rom Zcttgc/jt ! 96) . j adi ou` s rc|crcncc i s M.
roda' s trans|ation Iari s. C| i vagcs, ! 985) . c/tqncnunJc / Juns
/'atmc, duns /cs /curncts dc yriont//ugcs //c mondc sc mc/ a rnirc,
t/ n 'cn ticnt /qn'a toi. - trans. |
ZZ W\Lb \ PLLb l 3 l - l 3
Lh&gt0r 9 h0 LOnC0gt O buD-MuDD0r
I Catcgory thcory is an attcmpt to rc|ormu| atc a| | o| mathcmatics
within a structura| , nonsctthcorctical |ramcwork whosc starting
point is 'obj ccts` , which arc 'typcs o| structurcs' , and ' arrows` ,
whi ch arc trans|ormati ons, ormorphi sms, bctwccn structurcs. 1hc
conccpt o| substructurc can bc undcrstood i n tcrms o|that o|sub-
obj cct. A ' sub-obj cct' i s i n |act an cqui va| cncc c|ass |or ccrtain
arrows. C|. |or cxamp| c |. L. c| | ` s book 1oposcs and Loca/ Sct
1/cortcs x|ord. C| arcndon Ircss, I 988} , i n particu|ar thc argu-
mcnts o|pp. 49-58.
Z jscctionnc. - trans. |
J ' |a mati crcprcs` . In mathcmatics,' |a7 prcs`- Lng| i shcqui va|cnt
' up to 7

- i ndicatcs that abstraction i s to bc madc |rom a ccrtain

c| asso|obj ccts,which |or thcpurposcso|a particu| arstatcmcntor
dchniti onarc tobcrcgardcdasa si ng|ccntity.1husaccrtainpropo
sition can bc said to bc truc, or a propcrty to bc satishcd, ` up to
i somorphi sm` , ' uptorotati on` , 'up totrans| ati on` , and soon. Inthc
prcscnt contcxt, thc `cut` bctwccn thc high and |ow scts uni quc|y
dchncs a Mumbcr, so |ong as wc rcgard a|| possib|c conhgurations
o|' mattcr'asbcingsubsumcdundcrthcaspccto|thcuniqucminima|
casc. In othcrwords, thc dchni ti ono|thccutmustbcsupp|cmcntcd
by thc princi p| co|mini ma| i ty. - trans. |
4 j cncuJrcmcnt. an i ntcrva| in thcmathcmati ca| scnsc, as in ' intcrva|
around a rca| numbcr` . - trans. |
Lh&gt0r Lut9 h0 un0&D0nt& h0Or0D
I 1hc prob|cm o| thccardi na| ity o|thcscto|partso| an inhnitcsct i s
accntra|prob| cm|orsctthcorya|tcrCantor. 1hc` mi ni ma| ` hypoth
csis, whi ch says that this cardina| i ty i s t/c sma//cst cardi na| | argcr
than that o|thc i ni ti a| sct- thccardi na| succcssoro|thc oncwhich
mcasurcsthcquanti tyo|thatsct- i sthc|amous'conti nuumhypoth
csi s` , dcnotcd by CIi nthc Lng| i sh| i tcraturc onthcsubj cct.
|o||owing I. I. Cohcn` s work, wc know that thc conti nuum
hypothcsi si sundcci dab| con thcbasi so|thcc| assi ca| axi omso|thc
thcory. Itcanbca|hrmcdordcnicdwi thoutanycontradiction bci ng
i ntroduccd.
A particu| ar|y | uci d tcxt on thi s probl cm i s K. Gdc| ` s ' What i s
Cantor' s conti nuum prob|cm! ` . 1hc Lng| i sh tcxt has o|tcn bccn
rcpub| i shcd si ncc its hrst appcarancc i n I 947, |or cxamp|c in I.
cnaccrra|andI. Iutman cds} , |/t/osop/y oj Ma//cmattcs Cam
bri dgc. Cambri dgc Uni vcrsi tyIrcss, Znd cdn, ! 98J pp. 470-86.
W\Lb \ PLLb l 40- l 65 ZZ7
Z j Jans ccs paragcs Jn tagnc o tontc rca /itc sc Jissont. Ma| | arm,
` Coup dc ds' , p. I 8 I . - trans. |
J j Ibi d. - trans. |
4 1hc conccpto|thccut,andthcway in whichit spccihcsthcrc|ation
bctwccn punctua| i ntcrvcntion and thc conti nuum o| si tuati ons,
travcrscsa| | thcproccdurcso|truth. Itsoccurrcncccanbcrcmarkcd
inthcpo|i ticso|rupturc rcvoutionarypo| i tics } , i nthcartisticthcmc
o| novc|ty or o| modcrnity, in thc scicntihc thcmc o| criscs and
rc|oundations,orinthcamoroushgurco|scparation. Lvcryhdc| ity
i sa| so thc proccss o|a cut.
5 Ocdcki nd` s |undamcnta| tcxt on thc i dca o| thc cut, dati ng
|rom I 87Z, is ' Conti nuity and Irrationa| Numbcrs` j trans| atcd i n
Ocdckind, Mnmcrs, pp. I -Z4. - trans. | .
6 1hc cxposition in Gonshor, |n/rodnc/ion, bcgins with thc dcmon-
strationo|thc|undamcnta| thcorcm. Ii ssty|ci svcrydi ||crcnt. both
bccausc,asI havcarcadymcntioncd, Gonshoradoptsa |inc which
is oricntcd morc towards ca|cu| ati on than towards sct thcory, and
bccausc hc i s notcontcntwi th a proo|o|cxi stcncc, but i ntcnds to
dctcrminccxact/y thcMumbcrthatiscut whati sca| | cda 'construc
tivc`proo|} . 1hisconccrn|ordctcrmi nationcntai | sthccxami nation
o|a grcat manycascs.
` Wc wi|| scc in chaptcr I 6that thc uppcr bound o| a sct L, bcingo|
thc|orm W, , W, is an orJina/. 1his i s a stri ki ng rcsu|t.
8 1hc |owcr bound o| a sct I is in |act thc ncgativc o| an ordi na| , a
Mumbcr
~
W} . C|. ch. I 6 .
9 Ior ru|cZ, thc rcasoning is cxact|y symmctrica| to that which va| i
datcs ru|c I . Lct us takc ru|c J. wc havc Id. W, M} , and W i s in
thc|ormo|M. I putW i nthc|ormo|Mi. AmI notri ski ngmaking
it so that Mibccomcsthus as | argc asa Mumbcr o|A! 1akc Ma to
bc this supposcd Mumbcr. W must bc thc di scri mi nant o| Mi and
o|la, whi chi stosaythati t i sa| sothcdi scriminanto|MaandM.
MowW i s in thc |orm o|M, onc must thcrc|orc havc Ma M,
which i s nota| | owcd.
1hcsamcapproach can bc app| icd |or ru|c 4.
Lh&gt0r h0 MuDD0r099 bnCh&ntD0nt O th0
&C0 O MuDD0r
I As wc havc i ndicatcd in notcs ` and 8 o| thc prcccdingchaptcr, a
vcryintcrcsting' topo|ogica| ` charactcristico| thc positivcandncga
tivcordina|s is thatcvcryscto|Numbcrshasan ordi na| as itsuppcr
bound, and thc ncgativc o|anordina| as its |owcr bound. 1hiscan
ZZ8 W\cb \ PLLb l 65- l 8
bc cxp|ai ncd casi | y cnough, si ncc cvcry ordi na| is thc cut o| itsc||
and thc void, and cvcry ncgati vc o| an ordi na| , a cut o| thc void
and i tsc| |.
Z Gonshor, |ntroJnctton, p. JZ.
J j cncaJrcmcnt. - trans. |
4 1hc pri nc| p|co|thci somorphi smo|ordcrs- that| s, o|thc|actthat,
i |M i sa Mumbcrolhni tcmattcrand KA M} r, thcn M, M ~
KA M KA M } - is si mp| c cnough notc that is to thc |c|t o|
thci mp| icati on in thcordcrrc|ation in Mumbcrs,to thcrighto|thc
rc| ati on o| ordi nary ordcr i n thc rationa| numbcrs } . 1hc rcsu| t is
that, in thc dccomposition o|M i n thc |orm I + I + . . . - + ctc. ,
what i s addcd ' at thc cnd' dccrcascs vcry rapi dl y. 1hi s is a quitc
si mp| c, norma| a|gcbraicca| cu| ati on.
5 5cc Gonshor, |ntroJnctton, pp. J0-I .
6 nc might obj cct at this point that ourMumbcrs do not authorisc
thc rcprcscntation cithcr o| comp|cx numbcrs or o| quatcmions,
upon which physics rc|i cs to a considcrab|c cxtcnt.
ut arc comp|cx numbcrs and quatcrnions numbcrs! I thi nk i t
canbcrcasonab|ymaintai ncdthat, |rom thcmomcntwctakc|cavc
o| a|| ' | incarity' whcn wc abandon di mcnsi on I , wc arc dca| i ng
wi th constructions uscJ on Numbcrs rathcr than with Mumbcrs
pcr sc.
asica| | y, thci nncrmostcsscncco|comp| cxnumbcrsi sgcomctri
ca|, i t i s thc ` comp|cx p| anc` which dc| i vcrs thc truth o| thcsc
` numbcrs' . Around thccomp|cxnumbcrs i sorgani scd thcpro|ound
| i nkbctwccnpurca|gcbra thccxtcnsiono|hcl ds andthconto|ogi
ca| schcmc o| spacc as topo|ogica| conccpt. I am tcmptcd to cal |
comp|cx numbcrs opcrators, opcrators whosc |unction i n thought
i s to articu|atc a|gcbra and topo|ogy. Icncc thc si mu| tancous|y
combinatori a| acomp|cxnumbcr bcinga patr o|rca|numbcrs}and
gcomctrica| charactcro|thcsc ' numbcrs' . 1hcy arc in |act numbcrs
u/tc/ Jo no/ nnmcr, but suggcst schcmcs o| rcprcscntation and
i nscription which arc a| rcady, i n c||cct, somcthing vcry c|osc to a
conccptua| ' physics' .
Morcovcr, i t sccms to mc unrcasonab| c to spcak o| ' numbcrs`
whcn i t i s not cvcn possib|c, i n tcrms o|thc opcrationa| hc| d con-
si dcrcd, to say thatonc ` numbcr` i s | argcr or sma| l cr than anothcr.
In short. a hc| d oj nnmcrs must i n my vicw bc an orJcrcJ hc|d,
whi ch nci thcrcomp|cx numbcrs nor quatcmi onsarc.
|ina| | y, I rcstrictthcconccpto|Mumbcr,i nso|ar asi tisthought
o| as a |orm o|bcing, to that which can bc dcp|oycd according to
thc intuitiono|a |inc. Jhis i smadcclcarbythcdccisivcpartp|aycd
i n thc dchni ti on o|thc bcing o|Mumbcr by that |undamcnta| ' | i nc
o| bcing` constitutcd by thc ordina| s.
7 5cc Kobi nson, Mon-StanJarJ Ana/ysts jsccch. 5n I J. - trans . | .
W\Lb \ PLLb l 83-203 ZZ
Lh&gt0r M&tur& nt0r u00
I n thcmathcmatica| pcrsona|ityKamanuj an, scc thcgrcatnumbcr
thcoristG. I. Iardy` sautobiographica|A Mat/cmattctan 's Apo/ogy
j Cambridgc. Cambridgc Univcrsity Ircss, I 940. - trans. | .
Z n thc sctthcorctica| rcduction o| rc| ations and |unctions to thc
purc mu| ti p| c, and |or an onto|ogica| di scussion o| thi s point, scc
L`Ltrc ct / 'ctcncmcnt, Appcndi x Z, ' A rc|ation, or a |uncti on, is
so|c|ya purc mu| ti p| c' , pp. 48J-6 j pp. 44J-7i nthc Lng| i shtrans| a
tion. - trans . | .
J j La natnrc a /tcn, on n 'y ajontcra pas. Ma| | armc, ' Oc |a musi quc ct
dcs |cttrcs' , i n I. Mondor and G. |canAubry cds } , Ccntrcs com-
p/etcs Iari s. I| |adc, I 945 pp. 64Z-57. 1rans| atcd as ' Music and
Litcraturc' , in . Cook trans . } , Mu//armc. Sc/cc/cd |rosc |ocms,
Lssays anJ Lcttcrs a| timorc. |ohns Iopki ns Ircss, I 956 ,
pp. 4J-56 trans|ation modihcd} . - trans . | .
Lh&gt0r @0Dr& O MuDD0r9
I It is cqua| | y truc that cvcry sct o| Mumbcrs whosc mattcr is |owcr
than or cqna/ to a givcn i nhnitc cardi na| i sa commutativc hc|d. In
this rcgard, Gonshor is right to say that thc study o| thc hc| d o|
Mumbcrs o| hni tc mattcror cqua| to ' o|countab|c |cngth` j scc
Gonshor, |ntroJnctton, p. I 0J. - trans. | } wou| d bc most worth
whi|c.1hishc|da| | owsrca|Mumbcrsasasubsct,buti ta| socontai ns
i nhnitcsi ma| s and cuts o|cuts. It wou| d bc possi b| c to dcvc| op a
who||y origi na| ana| ysis hcrc.
Z Gonshor, |ntroJnctton, Ch. J, '1hc asic pcrati ons` .
J 1akc two ordi na| s W, and W_, whcrc j (WW) } W. I| W, is
maxima| in thc coup|c, cvcry coup|c (Wu,) whcrc u, E W i s
sma| | crthanthccoup|c(W, ,W_) in thcordcro|coup|cs scc 7. 6} ,
bccausc thcy havc thcsamcMax which i s W, } andthcsamchrst
tcrm which isa| soW, } , butthcsccondtcrm o|thccoup|c(Wu,)
is sma||cr than thc sccond tcrm o| (WW_). 5o, j (Wu,) E
j (WW) , sincc j is an isomorphi sm o| ordcr bctwccn coup|cs o|
ordina|s and ordina| s.
I|i tisWthatis maxi ma| , thcsamcconc| usi on|o| | ows,si ncc thc
Maxo|(Wu,) i s|owcr.
5imi|ar vcrihcationscan bc madc |orany such casc.
4 1hc induction in qucstion consists o| proving simu| tancous| y.

that, i| M_ M,,thcn M, + M_ M, + M, compati bi | i ty o| ordcr

and addi tivc structurc} ,
ZJ0 W\Lb \ PLLb 203-2 l 4

that thc Mumbcrs o| sct L arc a| | sma| | cr than thc Mumbcrs o|

sct I.
5 1o bc rca| | ymcti cu| ous, wc must takc i nto account thccasc whcrc
L docs not contai n any positivc Mumbcrs, but docs contai n O. In
thi s casc, 0 i s thc intcrna/ maxi mum o| L. nc can takc i t as 0
' a| onc' , or i dcnti [ L wi th thc sct 0} . 1hc rcasoni ng is thcn much
si mp| i hcd.
6 1hc rcadcrmightbcpcrturbcdby thc constantamphi bo| i cso|nota
tion thc sign uscd i n onc p| acc |or thc ordcr o|Mumbcrs, c| sc-
whcrc|or that o|this orthatparticu| artypco|numbcr,ctc. } In|act,
mathcmaticians who say in such a casc ` that thcrc i s no possi b| c
cgui voci ty' } cxprcss through such amphibo|i cs thci r natura| tcn
dcncy to iJcnti[y purc|y and si mp|y, and thcrc|orc to namc i dcnti
ca| | y, rc| ations and opcrati ons whi ch arc dchncd wi th isomorphic
structurcs. Iow c| sc cou| d Catcgory 1hcory havc ariscn, taki ngas
its ` pri mitivcs` not mu| ti p| i ci ti cs, but ' morphi sms` , or arrows, dcs
ignating 'corrcspondcnccs' bctwccn structura| ' obj ccts` !
Lh&gt0r n LOnCu9 On
rOD MuDD0r tO r&n9-0 n@
1 jaction rcstrcintc. Ma| | arm, 'Acti on rcstrci ntc' , in Ccntrcs com-
p/ctcs scc ch. ! `n Z) , pp. J69-J. |
Z j Como ntn Jcns, nao arrnmci ncm nma coisa ncu ontra. |rom
_
| varo dcCamposa/a IcrnandoIcssoa` s ! 929 pocm ' Kcticcncias' .
5cc |. Icssoa, cdi tcd by N. A. O. Ga| hoz, Cra loctica Kio dc
anciro. Agui | ar, I 960j . 1hi si s a variant o|hi s ' Quasi ` c|. Vo| . I I
o|thc LJiuo Crtica lmprcnsaMaci ona| - Casada Mocda, ! 990} ,
p. Z ! 5) , whcrcwcrcad Como nm Jcns, nao urrnmci ncm a tcrJaJc
ncm a tiJa ' Li kc a god, I arrangcd ncithcr truth nor | i |c` } . adiou
quotcs A. Gui bcrt`s Ircnch trans|ation. 1c/ nn Jicn, jc n `ai mis Jc
/'orJrc ni Jans / 'nn ni Jans / 'an/rc. - trans. |
| HUCX
addi ti on, ! 98-9
and i nductivc dchni ti on, 95, 96,
2O! -8
see a|so cal cul ati on
adhcrcncc, 9, 8
al gcbra, ! +2, I 96, ! 9, ! 98-2O8
Numbcrs o| hni tc mattcr and
dyadi c rati onal s, ! 3-+
as opcrati onal di mcnsi on o|
Numbcr, ! I !
and substructurc, ! J2, ! JJ
al gcbraic ori cntati on, ! O, ! 2, 48
Al l , I4, 8, 88-9, ! J9, ! 44, ! 9J
a|ogos and nomi nati on, I O6
Al thusscr, Ioui s, J
anal yti c gcomctry, ! I
Aristotlc, I O9
ari thmctic, Pcano` s signs, 49-5O,
5 I
ati thmcti c/gcomctry opposi ti on,
I O-! ! , ! 2, ! 4 !
art, J , I I !
as truth ptoccdurc, 5
see a|so poctry
Axiom o| thc Lmpty Sct, 44, 57
Axiom o| Ioundati on, O-2
Axiom o| Inhnity, 57, 82, 94
Axi om o| Scparati on, 2 I , 4J
axi omati c approach to numbcr, 9,
5
and dcci si on, 2I 2-! 3
Pcano`s axi oms, 8, I I , I 2, 46-5 I
basc-cl cmcnt o| numbcr
Dcdcki ndl , JJ, J1
bcati tudc, i ntcl lcctual statc o|, I 44,
I 8 J
Bci ng and numbcr, 9 , ! 2, 25 , 5-8,
! I ! , 2 I !-! 4
and opcrati onal propcttics, 2OO
and ordi nal s, 82, 8J
trans-bci ng, 2I 4
zcro, I 5-8
see a|so cxi stcncc, ontol ogy o|
lumbcr
bci ng o| thc nc, 7, 8, I J, 55
bcl ongi ng, 6 ! -6, 68, 69-O, 7I ,
76, 84, 9J
and di ||crcncc bctwccn numbcrs,
I ! 6-I
and scts o| ordi nal s, I I 2, ! I J-I4
bi uni vocal corrcspondcncc
coupl cs o| otdi nal s, I 9J-5, ! 96,
2O! -8
ZJZ 1WLL?
bi uni vocal corrcspondcncc cont` l
and Dcdcki nd, J ! , J2-J, 34,
36-, J8, J9
and Ircgc, ! J, ! 6-! 7
Bol zano, Bcratd, ! O, ! J
Borcl ,
_
mi l c, J O
Bourbaki , l. , ! O
Bural i - Iorti paradox, 55-6
burcaucrati sati on o| knowl cdgc, 2
cal cul ati on
as csscncc o| numbcr, 8, ! 8O
and ttuth, 26, 2
bcL a|so addi ti on, a| gcbra
canoni cal prcscntati on o| thc cut,
I 5, ! 65
Cantor, Gcorg, I , J-4, 8, I 2, I J,
52-8, 69, J, 2I 2
cxccss o| parts ovcr cl cmcnts
thcorcm, 6J, 65, 66
ttanshni tc numbcrs, ! O6
Capi tal , 2 I J-! 4
cardi nal s, I O, ! 2, ! J, 226n
Ircgc, I ! , I , J I
and zcro, J4
Carnap, Rudol |, 48
catcgory thcoty, I J !
Cauchy, Augusti n Loui s, Baron,
! 8
Ccl an, Paul pocml , ! JO
ci phcrs, 95
Cohcn, P. H. , I J 9
commutati vc hcl d, ! 99, 2O4
compl ctc i nducti on, 86
compl cti on o| lumbcr and thc cut,
I 42-J
compl cx numbcrs, ! O, ! ! , I 2, 228n
and quatcrni ons, 228n
conccpt o| numbcr, 9-I 5, 58, 69,
9, I O I-I 4, I 84, 2 ! ! -I 4
compl cx numbcrs and
quatctni ons, 228n
Dcdcki nd, J4-5
dchni ti on o| lumbcr, I O ! , ! O2-
! 2, ! JJ
dchni ti on o| opcrati on on
Numbcrs, 2O !
di ||crcncc and ordcr o| numbcrs,
I ! 5-3O, I 56
Itcgc, ! 6-2J, 55
and mul ti pl c-hci ng, ! O7
Mumhcr as |orm o| Bci ng, 2 ! !
sub-numbcr conccpt, ! J !-8
and tcrmi nology, ! O5-7
uni hcati on o| numbcr and
opcrati on, 2OO
constructi vist oricntation o|
thought, 27, JO
conti nuous and di sctctc, di al cctic
o|, I 4!
conti nuum hypothcsi s, ! O, 226n
and thc cut, ! 4 ! -2
Conway, |. H. , 9, ! O7
counti ng, 9, 55, 58, ! 84
al gchra, ! 98-2O8
countabl c and dchni ti on o|
numbcr, ! O9, ! I I
and cmpty scts, 64
and Pcano` s axi oms, 5 !
and pol i ti ca| val uc, I-2
and soci cty, J
coupl cs o| ordi nal s and opctati on,
I 84-96, 2OI
cul tura| rcprcscntati on, 2-J
cuts and cutti ng, I J 9-55
addi ti on, 2O I -8
construction o| a cut, I47-5J,
I 5
cut o| cuts, I 9-8O, 229n
Dcdcki nd` s thcoty, ! ! , ! O6, I 74-
5, I 6-7, ! 78
and dyadi c tati onal s, ! 74-5,
! 6-
and |undamcntal thcorcm o|
onto| ogy o| Numbcr, ! 4J-55,
! 56, 2O ! , 2OJ
and opctati on, 2O!
pri nci pl c o| thc cut, I 4J
sub-Numhcrs, ! J6, ! J8
surtcal numbcrs, 224n
dcci si on, 2 ! 2-! J
dccomposi ti on and structutc, ! J ! ,
! JJ
Dcdcki nd, R. , ! , J-4, 8, ! 2, ! J-I4,
J ! -45, 2 ! 2
thc cut, ! ! , ! O6, ! 4 I , ! 42, I 74-
5, I 76-7, ! 78
|cttcr to Kc|crstci n, 4-8
and Pca no, 46-, 5O
systcm o| t hc i nhni tc, J2, 35-44,
+7, 55, 56, 73, 85-6, 9J
dcducti on, 4, 2 ! 2
dchni tion o| addi ti on, 96
dchni ti on o| Numbcr, I OI , I O2-I 2,
I JJ, 228n
Dc| cuzc, Gi | | cs, 49
dcnomi nators, I 67, ! 69
dcnsi ty o| ordcr
and thc cut, !+O, I 4 I-2, ! 42-J,
I 55, ! 56
i nhni tcsi ma| numbcrs, I 79
see a|so swarmi ng o| numbcrs
Dcscartcs, Rcnc, Cogito, J 8-9,
4 ! -2
di ||crcncc bctwccn mattcr and |orm
o| Numbcr, I ! ! , ! ! 5-JO
and ordcr ovcr numbcrs, I ! 9-
JO, ! 56
di scrctc magni tudc, ! 4!
di scri mi nant, ! I , I 56
di scri mi nati on bctwccn numbcrs,
I I 5-JO
and cutti ng, I48, I 5O-2, I 54,
! 56, I 8O
and sub-Mumbcr conccpt, I J5-
Zcro, ! 58-9
di sordcr and rcstrai ncd acti on, 2I 4
di sscmi nati on, 9, 8O-! , 85
dyadic positivc rati ona| numbcrs,
I 67-
cconomy, J
'cconomy o| numbcr`, 48
c|cmcnts o| thc c| cmcnts o| a sct,
9-8O
cmpty cxtcnsi ons, I 8-! 9
cmpty scts, 22, 55, 6J-4, 8J, ! ! J,
! 5 7-8
and di ||crcncc bctwccn numbcrs,
I I 6-! 7
1WLL? ZJJ
and succcssi on, , 84-5, 95
and von Ncumann ordi na| s,
67-8, 69, !
cmpty scts axi om, 44, 5
cqua| s si gn and Pcano, 49-5O
cqui numcratc conccpts, I 6-I , I 8,
2O, J I
Luc| i d, /ements, , J6, ! O6
cvcnta| si tcs, ! O
cvcnta| trans-bci ng, 2I 4
cvcnts and truth proccss, 2, I 55,
2 I 4
Lvi | , ! 6O-!
cxccss o| parts ovcr c| cmcnts, 6J,
65, 66, ! J 9, !4O
cxi stcncc
and |undamcnta| thcorcm o|
onto| ogy o| lumbcr, I 46-5J
o| i nhni tc, J-44, 47-8, 55, 56,
9J
o| | i mi t ordi na| s, 82
o| zcro, 22-J, 56-
see a/so Bci ng and numbcr,
onto| ogy o| Numbcr
cxtcnsi on o| a conccpt, ! 6-! 7
Russc| | ` s paradox, 2O, 2 I
zcro, ! 8, 25
hni tc
Dcdcki nd and Ircgc, I 4, JO, +4,
85-6
Dcdcki nd` s dchni ti on, J6
hni tc group thcory, I J I
hni tc mattcr see Numbcrs o| hni tc
mattcr
hni tc numbcr, J2, +5, 97, I 66
hrst | i mi t ordi na| u , 94-5
' hrst modcrni ty` o| thi nki ng o|
numbcr, ! J
|orm o| Numbcr, I O2, ! OJ-5, I O8,
I ! O, ! 56
and thc cut, ! 47-5J, ! 9, I 8 O
and di ||crcncc, ! ! 5-JO
and ordi na| s, ! I 4
and rcsi duc, ! ! I , ! ! 2-I J, ! 65
and sub-lumbcr conccpt,
! JJ-8
ZJ4 1WLL?
|orm o| lumbcr cont` l
and symmctri cal countcrpart,
I 6 I-J, I 65, I 4
|ormal i st approach to numbcr, 8, 9,
! I , ! 4
|racti ons and dyadi c rati ona l
numbcrs, ! 6, I 69, ! !
Ircgc, Gottl ob, ! , J-, 8, ! J-!+,
I 6-JO, 44, 2 ! 2
' cardi nal numbcr` conccpt, I I ,
! 7, J I
and Dcdcki nd, J2, J5, 4O
Mi l l cr` s contcmporary usagc,
24-JO
|uncti ons, Dcdcki nd, J2-J
|undamcntal thcorcm o| thc
ontol ogy o| lumbcr, I 4J-55
and opcrati on, 2OI , 2O3
Gal i |co, J 6
gcncri c ori cntati on o| thought,
27
gcomctry
anal yti c gcomctry, I I
ari thmctic/gcomctry opposi ti on,
! O-I I , I2, ! 4!
and Grcck thought, ! O
Gdcl , Kurt, 8 , I O, I J9, 22On
Gonshor, Harry, 9, ! O7, ! 7O-! ,
224-5n, 227n, 229n
Grcck numbcrs, ! O, 9J, 9
cri si s o| numbcr, ! O6
Gtcck thi nkcrs and numbcr, , ! O,
56, 5
Hcgcl , G. W. I. , I 9, 95, I +! , ! 62
Hci dcggcr, Marti n, 8 I
hi gh sub-Mumbcrs, I J5-8, ! 45,
! 5, I 6O, I 65, I 66, ! 6,
2O2
Hi l bcrt, Davi d, 8
hi story, 2
hi story o| mathcmati cs, 2 I 2
homogcnci ty and mul ti pl i ci ty o|
ordi nal s, 68-9, 2, 8O
human sci cnccs, 2
Husscrl , Edmund, 22On
i dca o| an i dca, Dcdcki nd and
Spi noza, J8, J9, 4O-!
i dcal s thcory, I J2
Imhcrt, Cl audc, 2 I n
i mmcnsi ty o| Numbcrs, ! O2,
I O7-8, I ! 2, ! 7-8, 2OO, 2 ! ! ,
2 I 2
i ncl usi on and transi ti vc scts, 6! -6,
68, ! I J-! 4
i nconsi stcnt mul ti pl i ci ti cs, 89, I 44,
I 9J, I 99, 2 I 2
i nduction
Pca no, 4
rcasoni ng by rccurrcncc, 86-92,
95, 96, I 69
bLL a/so i nductivc dchni ti on,
transhni tc i nducti on
i nductivc dchnition, 89-92, 96-7,
I 69-O
and addi ti on, 95, 96, 2O! -8
and coup| cs o| ordi nal s, I 9J-5,
I 96, 2OI -8
i nhni tc, , I J-! 5, 2 ! 2
Cantor`s i nttoducti on o | 0 5J-,
J
Dcdcki nd and Ircgc, !+
Dcdcki nd` s dchni ti on, J6
Dcdcki nd` s systcm o| numbct,
J2, J5-44, 4, 55, 56, J,
85-6, 9J
and natural wholc numbcrs, 9J, 9
and Pcano` s axi om, +7, 5 I , 57
succcssi on and l i mi t, 7-82, 84,
85-6, 94, 95, I 8 8-96
i nhnitcsima l numbcrs, ! O8, I O9,
I 8-9, 229n
i ntcrval l ic Numbcr, I48, ! 52
i ntui ti oni st approach to numbcr,
29, 3O, I 62
i rrati onal numbcrs
Dcdcki nd` s cut, ! 4 !
a s dcsi gnati on, I O6
i rrcUcxi vi ty, I 2 ! , I 2J-4
i somorphi sm
and al gcbra, 2O8
and dyadi c rati onal numbcrs,
I 69, ! 7J-4
hc| d o| thc rca l s, 2OO
and wc| | -ordcrcd scts, 54-5, ! 96
i tcration o| numbcr, 29-JO
Kant, Immanuc| , J5, ! 4!
Knuth, D. L. , 9 , 224n
Iacan, jacqucs
si gni hcr and thc | cttcr, ! J O
thcory o| thc subj cct, 24, 25 , 28 ,
29, 4O
| ack and |unction o| zcro, 26, 28,
J4
| anguagc
and i nductivc dchni ti on, 8 9
and Pca no, +6, +8-9
tcrmi no| ogy o| Numbcr, ! O5-
|aw o| Capi ta| , 2 ! J, 2I 4
Ici bni z, Gott|ricd Wi | hc| m, 26-,
JO, J5
Pri nci p| c o| Idcnti ty, ! 8-! 9, 25
| cxi cographi ca| ordcr, ! J O
| i mi t ordi na| s, -8, 78-9, 8 O, 8 !-
2, 84, 85, 2 ! !
coup| cs o| ordi na| s, I 8 8-96
and i nductivc dchni ti on, 9O, 92
and maxi ma| c| cmcnt, ! ! J
and natura| who| c numbcrs,
9J-7
and rcasoni ng by rccurrcncc, 8,
95
and who| c ordi na| part o| a
Numbcr, ! 72
' | i ngui stic turn` in phi | osophy, 48
|ogic o| thc si gni hcr, 24-5, 29, JO
|ogicist approach t o numbcr, 8, 9,
I I , ! 6, I 8-I 9, 22
and ordi na| s, 52
Pcano` s axi oms, 46-5 I
see a/so Ircgc
|ovc, as truth proccdurc, 57
| ovc and thc ncgati vc, ! 6!
| ow sub-Numbcrs, ! J5-8, I 5,
I 6O, I 65, I 66, I 6, 2O2
|owcr bound o| a sct o| lumbcrs,
I+5-6
Iyotard, |. -I. , +8
1WLL? ZJ5
Ma| | armc, Stcphanc, !J, ! 6, I 96,
! 9, 2 ! J
Mandc| stam, si p, 22Jn
Marx, Kar| , J
mathcmati cs and lumbcr, 2 ! 2,
2 ! 3
mattcr o | Mumbcr, I O2, I OJ-5,
! O8, ! ! O, I ! I , ! ! J, ! 56
and thc cut, ! 4-5J
and di ||crcncc, ! I 5-JO
and sub-lumbcr conccpt,
! J J-8
see a/so lumbcrs o| hni tc mattcr
maxi ma| c| cmcnts and ordi na| s, 76,
8 I , ! I J
maxi ma| ordi na | o| a coup| c,
I 8 5-96
mcdi ci nc, 2
Michc| , Natacha, I J
Mi | | cr, jacqucs-A| ai n, 24-JO, J 9-
4O, 44, 7J
mi ni ma| c|cmcnt o| ordi na| s, I I J,
I I , I 8 6-8
mi ni ma| mattcr and cutti ng, ! 45-6,
! 5J-5, I 5, ! 6
mi ni ma| i ty see pri nci p| c o|
mi ni ma| i ty
Mi ri mano||, D. , Axi om o|
Ioundati on, 222-Jn
modcrn ana| ysi s, ! J, 56, 2 I 2
Modcrni ty, 65
Mu| ti p| c
and onto| ogy o| mathcmati cs,
! J !-2
and ordi na| s, I O8, ! O9
proccssi on |rom thc nc,
purc mu| ti p| c, 8, 44, 58, 65, 8J,
I OI , ! 85
mu| ti p| c-bci ng and conccpt o|
numbcr, I O
mu| ti p| i cati on, ! 99
and i nducti vc dchni ti on, 95,
96-7, 2O
mu| ti p| i ci ti cs, 6 I-9
Dcdcki nd` s thcory, J ! 5, 56
i nconsistcnt mu| ti p| ici ti cs, 89,
! 44, ! 9J, ! 99, 2 I 2
ZJ 1WLL?
mu| ti p| ici ti cs cont` l
natura| mu| ti p| i ci ty and ordi na| s,
68-O, 8J, 84, 88-9, I 66, 2 I !
transi ti vc mu| ti p| i ci ti cs, 6 ! -6
von Ncumann ordi na| s, 67-2
' naivc` thcory o| scts, J ! -45
natura| mu| ti p| icity and ordi na| s,
68-7O, 83, 84, 88-9, I 66, 2 ! !
natura| who| c numbcrs, I O, I 2,
9J-, ! 5
addi ti on, 2O-8
and Dcdcki nd` s cut, ! !
dchni ti on, 94, 95
and dchni ti on o| Numhcr,
! O8-9, I I O
' Pcano` s axi oms` , 8, I I , I 2,
46-5 I , 88
positivc and ncgativc numbcrs,
I 66-
and succcssi on, , 8+, 95
Naturc and numbcr, 69-O, 8J, 92,
I O9, ! JO, ! 8J-97
ncgativc numbcrs, I2, I 5, I 58-6 I
addi ti on, 2O5-6, 2O8
natura| who| c numbcrs, ! 66-
and ordi na| s, I 65
symmctric countcrparts, I 6 !-J,
! 4
Ncgati vity, ! 6O-I
Ncop| atoni sm,
Ncumann, |ohn von scc von
Ncumann
ncutra| i sati on and cutti ng, ! 4,
! 48
U as ncutra| c| cmcnt |or addi ti on,
2O4-5
li ctzschc, I. W. , 49, 65
nomi na| i st ori cntati on o| thought,
2, ! 5
nomi nati on and si gni hcati on,
I O6-, I O8, ! 75
non-rcUcxi vc rc| ati ons, I 2 ! , I 2J-4,
I 56
non-sc| |-i dcnti ty and zcro, 25-JO
' not i dcnti ca| to itsc| |` cxtcnsi on
and zcro, I 8-2 ! , 25-JO
numbcr
dchni ti on o| Numbcr, ! O ! ,
! O2-I 2, I JJ, 228n
and Naturc, 69-O
o| Numhcrs, ! J9, ! 4O
Pcano` s si gns, 49-5 !
and structurc, I J I-8
and thought, I O, 88-9, 92
scc a/so conccpt o| numbcr
numbcr thcory, I ! , ! J2
numbcrs
and Grcck thought, ! O
i mmcnsi ty o | Numbcrs, ! O2,
! O7-8, ! ! 2, ! 77-8, 2OO, 2 ! ! ,
2 ! 2
Numbcrs o | hnitc mattcr, 229n
addi ti on, 2O7
and dyadi c rati ona| numbcrs,
I 68-
numcrators, I 67
numcrica| i ty o| Numbcr, ! 2O, I 2! ,
I -8, 2 I J-! 4
and symmctrici sati on, ! 65-6
obj ccts, 2 I !
catcgory thcory and substructurc,
226n
Dcdcki nd and i nhni tc, J8-4J
Ircgc`s doctri nc o|, I 9, 2O
mathcmati ca| ontol ogy and
mu| ti p| cs, ! J !-2
and ' not i dcnti ca| to i tsc| |`
cxtcnsi on, 25-JO
nc, thc, 7-8, I O, ! J-! 5, 55, 85
Dcdcki nd and Ircgc, ! 4, 44
Ircgc and conccpt o| nc, ! 8
and Pcano`s axi oms, 5O
and trans-bci ng, 2 ! +
onto| ogy o| mathcmatics, ! J | -2,
! JJ
onto| ogy o| Numbcr, 8-9, 58, ! O ! -
8O, I 5-8, 2I I-! 4
and a| gcbra, 2OO
and thc cut, I 5
and dyadi c rati ona| s, ! 74
|undamcnta| thcorcm o|, ! 4J-
55, 2O! , 2OJ
mcdi tati on on ncgati vi ty, ! 6O-!
and numbct as conccpt, ! 9, 2! -
2, JO, 6 !
and ordcr o | numbcrs, ! 2! -2
ordi na| s, 68
pai rs o| ordi na| s and succcssi on,
! 89-9 !
and surtcal numbcr thcory, 224n,
225n
and transi ti vc scts, 65-6
opcn scts, I42
opcrati ona| di mcnsi on o| Numbcr,
9, ! O ! , ! ! ! , ! 8J-2O8, 2 ! !
a| gcbra, ! 96, ! 9, ! 98-2O8
dchni ti on o| opctati ons on
Numbcrs, 2O!
hctions and dyadi c rati onal s,
! 75, ! 77
Numbcrs o| hnitc mattct and
dyadic rati ona| s, ! 7J-4
and who| c Numbcrs, ! 66-
scc a/so ca| cu| ati on, counti ng,
mu| ti pl ication
ordcr o| Numbcrs, ! 2, ! O ! , ! ! ! ,
! ! 9-JO, ! 56, 2 ! !
dchni ti on, ! ! 9
dcnsi ty o| ordcr, I4O, ! 4 ! -2,
! 42-J, ! 55, ! 56, ! 79
dyadi c rational numbcrs, I 6-8
scc a/so ' wc| | -ordcrcdncss` and
otdi nal s
ordcrcd pa i ts o| otdi na| s, ! 84-96
ordi na| s, ! O, ! 2, 67-9, ! 56, ! 5
Cantor`s thcory o| wc| |
ordcrcd ncss, 52-8, 6 I , 68,
! 88, I 94, I 96
coupl cs o| otdi nal s, I 8+-96, 2OI
and cuts, ! J9-55
and Dcdcki nd, J ! , J+, +4
and dchnition o| Numbcr, I O2-
5, I O8-I 2
di ||ctcncc o| numbcrs, I I 5-2O,
! 56
and Ircgc, ! I
and i nhnity, 44, 85-6, 9J, 94
natural who|c numbcrs, 9J-
as Numbcrs, ! 6J-6
1WLL? ZJ7
opcrati ona| abi | i ty, ! 84-97
and ordcr o| numbcrs, I 2O-JO,
! 56, ! 64
propcttics o|, 86-92, 94-5, I ! J,
! J4, ! 7O-2
rcasoni ng by rccurrcncc, 86-92,
95, 96, I 69
scts o| ordi nal s, ! ! 2-! 4, ! J9
sub- Numbcrs as, I 65
and succcssi on, J-82, 84-5, 95,
I 8 8-96
and surrca| numbcrs, I O7
tri p| cts o| ordi na| s, ! 96
von lcumann otdi nal s, 6-2
whol c ordi nal part o| a Numbcr,
! O-J
' outsi dc mattcr` posi ti on, ! 2O,
! 45
parti cul at prcdicatcs, 8
parti ti oncd lumbcr, I JJ-4, 2O!
parts o| otdi nal s, I O2, I OJ-5, ! O8,
! O9, ! I 2, I ! J-! 4
Pasca| , B| ai sc, J2
Pcano, Gi uscppc, ! , J-4, 9, ! J ,
46-5 ! , 2 ! 2
axi oms, 8, I I , I 2, 46-5 ! , 8 8
Pcssoa, Icrnando | pocml , 2 I 4
phi | osophy and l anguagc, +8-9
pl acc o| numbcr, 9J, I 56-8O
Dcdcki nd, J5, J6-, J9, 42
and succcssi on, 95
P| ato, J5, 49, 64, I OJ
' pl atoni si ng` apptoach to numbcr,
8-9
pocm, ' suturc` o| phi | osophy, 8 I
poctry and thc ncgati vc, ! 6 !
Po| i ti ca| Scicncc, 2
po| i ti cs
govcrncd by numbcrs, I-2
and thc ncgativc, I 6 I
a s truth proccdurc, 5
rcvo| uti on vs rc|orm, 9
positivc Numbcrs, ! 58-6O
addi ti on, 2O5-8
dyadi c posi ti vc rati ona| numbcts,
! 6-77
ZJ8 1WLL?
posi ti vc lumbcrs cnt` l
i nhni tcsi mal numbcrs, ! 8-9,
229n
natural whol c numbcts, ! 66-
and ordi nal s, I 65
symmctri c countctparts, ! 6 !-J
and whol c ordi nal part o| a
lumbcr, I O-J
Ptcscncc, 56, 5
prcscntati on
and bcl ongi ng, 65, 66, 68, !
and structurc, I J ! , I 3J
pri nci pl c o| thc cut, I43
pri nci pl c o| i dcnti hcati on, ! 4J
Pri nci pl c o| I dcnti ty, ! 8-! 9, 25
Pri nci pl c o| I ndi sccri bl cs, 27, 3O
pti nci pl c o| mi ni mal ity, 2, 88, 94-
5, ! ! J, I ! 7, ! 86-7
and cutti ng, I4J, I44, I46, ! 5J-5
Pti nci pl c o| Non-Contradi cti on, 2
pri nci pl c o| rccutrcncc, I 2, 47
see a/so tcasoni ng by rccurrcncc
Pri nci pl c o| Su|hci cnt Rcason, I 9
proccdurc o | ncutral i sati on, ! 4,
I+8
progrcssi on o| numbcr, 29-JO
propcrtics o| otdi nal s, 86-92, 9+-
5, ! ! J, I 34
and whol c otdi nal part o| a
Numbcr, ! 7O-2
propcrty o| succccdi ng, 5-6
proporti ons and ' i rtati onal
numbcrs` , ! O6
purc mul ti pl c, 8, 44, 58, 65, 8J,
! O I , ! 85
quasi -conti nui ty o| rati onal s, ! 42
quatctni ons, ! O, 228n
Ramanuj an, Sri ni vasa, ! 8J-4
rati onal numbcrs, I O, ! 2, ! O9,
! 5, ! 99
and Dcdcki nd` s cut, ! 4 !-2, ! 55,
I 74-5, ! 6-7
dyadi c posi ti vc rati onal numbcts,
I 6-7
and Ircgc, ! I
tcal numbcrs, I O, ! 2, ! O, I O9,
! 57, 229n
and al gcbra, I 99
and Dcdcki nd`s cut, I ! , I 42,
I 4-5, ! 6-7, ! 79-8O
dchni ti on o|, I 76, I 99-2OO
and dyadi c rati onal s, ! 74-7
and Ircgc, ! I
i nhni tcsi mal numbcrs, ! 8-9,
229n
posi ti vc rcal numbcrs and cut o|
cuts, ! 9-8O, 229n
rccurrcncc
and Pcano` s axi oms, ! 2, 47
tcasoni ng by, 86-92, 95, 96, I 69
see a/so i nducti vc dchni ti on
rci gn o| numhcr, 2 ! J, 2! 4
rcl ati vc whol c numhcrs, ! O
rcpcti ti on and numhcr, 29-JO
rcprcscntati on and i ncl usi on, 65,
66, 68
tcsi duc o| thc Numbct, ! O2, ! O4,
! O5, I ! I , ! ! 2-I J, I 56
and thc cut, ! 45, I47-5J, ! 8 O
and di ||crcncc, ! ! 5-JO
and dyadi c rati onal numhcrs,
! 68, ! 69, ! 2
and sub- Numhcr conccpt, ! J4
and symmctri cal countcrpart,
! 6 !-J, ! 65, I 74
uppct bound o| Numbcr, ! 45
and zcro, ! 59, I 6O-!
rcstrai ncd acti on, 2 ! J, 2 ! 4
ri ng thcory, ! J2
Robi nson, A. , 5O, ! 8
Russcl l , Bcrtrand, 8, 2 ! 2
Itcgc and Russcl l ` s paradox, 2O,
2 ! , 42, 4J
sa/ca teritate, 26, 27
Sarttc, |can-Pau| , J9
sci cncc and thc ncgati vc, ! 6 !
scicnccs and numbcrs, 2
'sccond modcrni ty` o| thi nki ng o|
numbct, ! J-! 5
scction o| Numbct, ! O8-9, ! l O,
! ! !
scri a| numcrica| i ty, 88, ! 2 I -2
scrics o| numbcrs, 7
sct o| conccpts, ! , 2O
sct o| parts, 9 !
sct-thcorcti ca| approach to numbcr,
8-9, ! I , 22
sct thcory
axi om o| |oundati on, O-2
Dcdcki nd` s ' naivc` thcory o| scts,
J !-45
sct o| a| | scts, 42-J
and surrca| numbcrs, 224n, 225n
scts o| ordi na| s, ! ! 2-! 4, ! J 9
si gn/si gni hcr and thc | cttcr, ! J O
si gn/si gni hcr and numbcr, 24-5, 29,
3O, 49
Gonshor and surrca| numbcrs,
224-5n
nomi nation and si gni hcati on,
! O6-7, I O8, I 75
Pca no` s axi oms, 48, 49-5 I
si mi | ar trans|ormati on, Dcdcki nd,
J2, J4
si ng|ctons, 64-5, 7 ! , 95
Sko| cm, T. , 5O
soci cty and numbcr, J
soci ol ogy, 2
Spi noza, Baruch, J 8-9, 4O-!
'squarc ci rc|c` conccpts, ! 8, I 9
squarc numbcrs and bi uni voca|
corrcspondcncc, J6
squarc root, ! 99
statistics, 2
structurc and substructurc, ! J ! -8,
2 I !
subj cct, Iacani an thcory, 24, 25,
28, 29, 4O
subj ccti vi ty o| numbcr
Dcdcki nd, J9-4O
Mi | | cr`s cha| |cngc to Ircgc,
24-JO
sub-numhcr conccpt, ! J !-8, ! 5
and cutti ng, I45, I4, I 48 , I 5+,
! 6-7
and dyadi c rati ona| s, ! 6
and natura| who| c numbcrs, I 66
and opcrati on, 2O ! , 2O2
1WLL? ZJ
sub- Numhcrs as ordi na| s, ! 65
sub- Numbcrs as posi ti vc, ! 6O
sub-obj ccts and catcgory thcory,
! J !
subscts o | ordi na| s, ! O2, ! OJ-5
substi tutabi | i ty, 26
substructurc, I J I-8, I 4
succcssion, JO, J-82, 8+, 85, 95,
I 42, I 88-96, 2 ! !
succcssor ordi na| s, 76-8, 9, 8 I ,
84-5, 94, 95
coup| cs o| ordi na| s, ! 8 8-96
Dcdcki nd, J4, 46-7
and di scri mi nants, ! ! 7-! 8 , ! ! 9
and i nducti vc dchni ti on, 8 9-9O,
9 ! , 96-
Pcano` s si gns, 49, 5O
and who| c ordi na| part o| a
lumbcr, ! 2
surrca| numbcrs thcory, 9, I J,
! O7-8
usc o| ' surrca| ` , ! O7, ! O8
swarmi ng o| numbcrs, JO, ! ! 2,
! J9, ! 4O, 2OO
and |undamcnta| thcorcm o| thc
ontol ogy o| Mumbcr, I4J-55
symmctric countcrpart ol a
Numbcr, ! 6 I-J, ! 65-6, ! 4
symmctri ci sati on ol addi ti on, ! 2
symmctri ci sati on o| mu| ti p| i cati on,
! 2
systcm o| numbcr, Dcdcki nd, J2-8
tcrmi no| ogy o| Numbcr, ! O5-7
thought and numbcr, I-4, 57-8,
88-9, 92, 2 ! J
thc cut, ! 55
and Dcdcki nd` s i nhnitc systcms,
J8-4 I , 4-8, 9J
Ircgc and conccpt o| numbcr,
! 6-2J
Grcck thi nkcrs, , ! O, 5
and | anguagc, 48-9
topo|ogica| ori cntati on, I O, ! 2, I 42
topo| ogy o| di ||crcncc, ! 2O
tota| rc| ati ons, I 2I , I22-J, I 56
trans-bci ng, 2 ! +
Z40 1WLL?
transhni tc i nducti on, ! 9, 86, 89,
9O, 9 I-2
and coup| cs o| ordi na| s, ! 9J,
! 96, 2OI
and opcrati on, 2O I-8
and surrca | numbcrs, 224n
transhni tc numbcrs, ! O6
trans|ormati on, Dcdcki nd, 32-J,
J4
transi ti vc scts
and i nc| usi on, 6 ! -6, 68, ! I J-! 4
and succcssi on, 74-5
and von Ncumann ordi na| s,
6-72
transi ti vi ty, ! 2
di ||crcncc and otdcr o| numbcrs,
! 2 I , ! 25-JO, I 56
tri p| cts o| ordi na| s, I 96
truth
and ca| cu| ati on, 26, 2
and lumbcr, 2 ! J-! 4
and thought; 4 ! , 2 ! J
truth proccss and cvcnt, 27
truth-casc o| conccpts, ! 6, 25
u| tra-nc, 2 I 4
unconsci ous, +!
uni ci ty and |undamcnta| thcorcm
o| onto| ogy o| Mumbcr, ! 45,
I 5J-4, 2OO
uni on o| a sct, 9-8O, 8 ! , 9 ! , ! O2
uni qucncss and thc cut, ! 4J,
I 44-6, I 55, I 5
uni ty, 7, 8
Icano` s si gns, 49, 5 !
uppcr bound o| ordi na| s, ! ! J, ! 89,
I 9O, 2O8
o| a sct o| Numbcrs, ! 44-5
va| uc and lumbcr, 2 ! 3-I4
Vcnn di agrams, ! O5
voi d, ! 5-8, 2 I 2
and Lvi | , I 6O-!
and i nducti vc dchni ti on, 89, 9!
si ng|ctons o|, 64-5, 7! , 95
and succcssi on, 77, 84-5, 95
see a/so cmpty scts, zcro
von Mcumann, |ohn, 8, ! 2
von Ncumann ordi na| s, 6-72,
7J
and succcssi on, 7J, 74-5
' wc| | -ordcrcd ncss` and ordi na| s,
52-8, 6 ! , 68, ! 88, I 94, ! 96
who| c numbcrs see natura| who| c
numbcrs, rc| ati vc who| c
numhcts
who|c ordi na| part o| a Numbcr,
I 7O-J
Wi ttgcnstci n, Iudwi g, 2 ! 2
Zcrmc| o, L. I. I. , 8 , 22
Axi om o| Scparati on, 2O-! , 4J
zcro, -8, ! J-! 5
and axi om o| thc cmpty scts,
44
and bcing, 25, 56-7
and bc| ongi ng and i nc| usi on,
6J-5
Dcdcki nd and Ircgc on, !4, 4O,
+4
di scri mi nant, ! 5 8-9
cxi stcncc o|, 22-J, 56-
Ircgc and conccpt o| zcro,
I 8-I 9, 22, 25-JO, 4O, 55
and i nhni tcsi ma| numbcrs,
I 78-9
| ack and |uncti on o| zcro, 26,
28, J4
as ncutra| c| cmcnt |or addi ti on,
2O+-5
as Numbcr, I 57-8
ordi na| s and wc| | -ordcrcd scts,
55
and Pcano` s axi oms, 5O, 5 !
and posi ti vc and ncgati vc
Mumbcrs, ! 5 8-6 !
see a/so cmpty scts, voi d