Instead of writing a long argument here is a summary of where I believe the foundations of mathematics should begin. It is a presented argument nothing more, but it provides the foundations for arithmetic, geometry and allows for sets. I am still looking for feedback on it, but so far it seems feasible.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:59 pmI think you're on shaky ground if you are looking to provide a foundation for Mathematics as Russell and Whitehead tried with Logic and only partly succeeded, mainly with the numbers as it happened.Eodnhoj7 wrote:Thats the thing, some people say zero is a number and others say it is not. One is a number, plus it provides a foundation. ...

Zero is only not a number if you stick with the natural numbers but if you do that you can't have the negative numbers, et al, which I doubt you'd want?

What are numbers in our Mathematics, functions. What do you think they are?Would zero be a number without the set? ...Not sure what you mean here but, as best I understand it, a set doesn't have to be a number as it can be the empty set { }.That is the question I ask, because if it requires a set to be a number than the set itself must be a number conducive to one.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23228