Frege's definition of the real numbers, as envisaged in the second volume of Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, is fatally flawed by the inconsistency of Frege's ill-fated Basic Law V. We restate Frege's definition in a consistent logical framework and investigate whether it can provide a logical foundation of real analysis. Our conclusion will deem it doubtful that such a foundation along the lines of Frege's own indications is possible at all.

In this essay, I first solve solve a conundrum and then deal with criteria of identity, Leibniz's definition of identity and Frege's adoption of it in his (failed) attempt to define the cardinality operator contextually in terms of Hume's Principle in Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. I argue that Frege could have omitted the intermediate step of tentatively defining the cardinality operator in the context of an equation of the form ‘NxF(x) = NxG(x)'. Frege considers Leibniz's definition of identity to be (...) purely logical, although without saying why it is in line with his logicist project. I argue that the universal criterion of identity that Frege takes from Leibniz's definition and the specific criterion of identity for cardinal numbers embodied in Hume’s Principle (namely equinumerosity) work hand in hand in the tentative contextual definition of the cardinality operator. Yet the interplay between the two criteria is powerless to prevent the emergence of the Julius Caesar problem, let alone suggests how it could be solved. The final explicit definition of the cardinality operator that Frege sets up still rests on the identity criterion of equinumerosity since cardinal numbers are defined as equivalence classes of that relation. (shrink)

Theoria, Volume 88, Issue 3, Page 629-652, June 2022.

Foundational projects disagree on whether pure and applied mathematics should be explained together. Proponents of unified accounts like neologicists defend Frege’s Constraint (FC), a principle demanding that an explanation of applicability be provided by mathematical definitions. I reconsider the philosophical import of FC, arguing that usual conceptions are biased by ontological assumptions. I explore more reasonable weaker variants — Moderate and Modest FC — arguing against common opinion that ante rem structuralism (and other) views can meet them. I dispel doubts (...) that such constraints are ‘toothless’, showing they both assuage Frege’s original concerns and accommodate neo-logicist intents by dismissing ‘arrogant’ definitions. (shrink)