Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
~~~\
.The C~assicsof
..
the ~t.~OhnIS Progr~
GEORG CANTOR
(1845 .19l.8)
TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
Three papers on transfinite numbers from the Mathematische Vol. XLVI (189S). PP. 481512. Annalen
..
0;
'
vol. XLIX (1$97). pp. 207246.
~ •
Vol. XXI (1883) PP. 545591. (Grundlagen)•
•
Translated jrom the.German
by
.,::
.'~ ,
George ~. Bingley
Je suis tel1ementpour 11infini actuel, qu'au'lieu d1admettre, que la nature l'abhorre, comme lIon dit vulgairement, je tiens qu1elle l'affecte partout, pour mieux marquer les perf'ectdons de son AuteUr.  Leibnitz
Copyright 1941by George A. Bingley
92.
ON INFINITE, LINEAR POINTMANIFOLDS
(Jlathematische Annalen, Vol. XXI, p. 54591; '1883) Georg Cantor in Halle (Continuation of the article Also reprinted, in Vol. XXI, p. 51) "Grundlagen einer allgemeinen
Leipzig 1883, under the title
Mannich£altigkeitslehre~ff
5.
§ 1.
The presentation at last of m1 investigations up.to now in the·theor,y continuation depends upon
reached a point where further beyond its
'~''''''f''''''\''U of thE! ccncept of real integer furthElrroon" this extension lies ha.s proceeded.
limits as accepted today,
nzy"
"in a direction
along l\1'l.ich to
knowledge
This dependence, which brings me face to face with an extension ~umber conoept ~ is so great,. that. vd. thout such an extension it possible to take even the slightest may then, for this
IOJ,IU.J,.V",;y,
YO uld
be
~tep forward in the theory of sets; or, it necessary, even
reason, be found justification" apparently unfamiliar
for introducing
ideas into my considerations. of the series of real inte
it is a question of an extension and continuation into the infinite
S8
(·,1ber das Unendliche); daring ae this may seem, I venture this extension will one. I make no
not only the hope but even·the firm cqnvictionthat
.
be recog~izedas
'.
an entirely
simple I proper, and natural
to conceal the fact that in this
undertaking I submit a point of view
i~ considerable
opposition to widely accepted opinions on the mathernati
cal infinite
and to frequently presented views on the nature of numerical quan
As to the mathematical infinite, has been found a justifiable application
it seems to me that in so far for it in the sciences and it in the
has been employedfor their advancement, it has appeared principally
.role of a variable which grows [546] beyond all limits or di.mirishesto any • desired minuteness, but which always appears as a quantity remaining finite. I call the idealinfinite (Uneigentlichunendlich)*.
But in recent times and even at the present day, in geometry and in the theory of functions, another equally justifiable kind of concept of function
"'1nfini ty has arisen, 'in which for example, in the study of en analytic a complex variable,
it has becomethe geperal and necessary usage to think in the plane .of the complexvariable, that is, the
of a single point at infinity infinitely distant
but nevertheless definite
point" and to investigate
of the function in the neighborhood of this point; from which it turns out.that the behavior of the function in the neighborhood of the infinitely exactly the same properties as at any point in the finite
distant point exhibits
so that full justification
is assured to think of the infinite
in this
as lying at a completely determined point. Whenthe infinite actualinfinite appears in such a definite form I call it
(Eigentli.chUnendliches)*.
, *Transllltoris Note: . The translator is not entirely satisfied with his renderings of "Uneigeritlich" and IlEigentlichU as ideal and actual, in that they fail to showthat the former is the negative of the later; "nonactualll and "actuulJt seemedtoo artificial. "Realtl for UEigentlich" is fraught with countless ambiguities. Bertrand Russell suggests "improper" for "Uneigentlich".
94.
These two roles in which the mathematical infinite appears,
c.rI...,J .......
which, in both forms, imnense progress has been made in geometry" in
sis, and in mathematical physics, must be carefully distinguished from other if we are to understand what follows. In the first form, as idealinfinite, it appears as finite and
WaL..La.lLLO;
in the other form, which I call the actualinfinite,
it is seen to be
The infinite real integers which I shall define and to whose study I had devoted a considerable period of years I became clearly aware that they were to be regarded as concrete numbers real meanin~ , have absolutely nothing in co~on , with the first of these .
, with the idealinfinite, but possess rather the same cho.racter of deterss which is the property of the pqint at infinity of analytic functions; belong therefore to the forms and characters of the actualinfinite. reas the point nt infinity in the plane of the complex numbers stands alone distinot from all the points of the finite region we obtain not a single inte [547J integer but an infinite series of such, which are clearly differented from each other and· stand in orderly numbertheory relations to each other well as to the finite integers. These relationships are not however such as
be referred in their unqerlying principles to the relations of finite n~ to each other; this kind of relationship (that of finite numbers to each
may appear, however, as it frequently does in the case of the various in
...,,,, ,,,s ".. ... ,,, (St~rken) and forms of the idealinfinite, ...
for example, for functions
which become infinitely small or infinitely large, in case they determinate finite order numbers' in their process of becoming infinite. relationships can only be looked upon Ln fnct as veiled mterrelations of
the finite or of such quantities as can be directly referred to the finite; the
'* Centor's Note:
Up to now I have called them IIde finitely defined symbols of vid. Math. Ann. Vol. XVII, p. 357; Vol. XX p. 113; Vdl. XXI p. 54.
95.
·laws governing the actualinfinite integers (yet to be defined) are , on the · other hand, fundamentally different from the relationships which obtain for the finite, from which it is not unlikely that the finite real numbers the~ selves may gain certain new determinations with aid of the actual infinite numbers. The two erfnciples of gener~tion, by whose help, as will be shown, these new definite infinite numbers will be defined, are of such a natureJ that through their united operation ever,y bnrrier seemingly inherent in the , concept of the real integers can be broken through; fortunately, however, a :~ ~ principle appears as we shall see J which I cell the limiting or restrict· principle, b,y which successive definite limits are imposed upon the endless
·process of generation, so that we obtain natural divisions in the absolutely infinite succession of the real tntegers, Which divisions I call numberclasses ,(Zahlenclassen) •
The first numberclass (I) is the set of the finite integers
2, 3,••••••••• , v,._ •••••, which is followed by
a
second numberclass (II),
:consisting of certain infinite integers following each o~her in a determined succession; after defining the second numberclass the third is reached, then fourth . &tc. The introduction of these new integers SGems to me, turthermore, to be of the grea.test importcnce for the development and clarification of .the concept of power (Uichtigkeitsbegriff) which I have introduced and fre
quently applied in Ge.rlier portions of ntV work. According to this the~ry a power is aasocd.ated with every welldefined set, in that the same
assigned to two sets if a reciprocal onetoone correspondertce can be up between the two, element for element.
In
the case of finite sets power coincides with the number
(Anzahl) of elements since such sets, as is known, have the same number,
"
96.
of elements in every ordering of them.
In the case
ot infinite sets, however, there has been no men
tion up to now of a precisely defined enumeration (Anzahl) of their elements either in my works or else:where, although the concept of a power Which is en.tirelyindependent of any particular ordering has been discussed. The smallest power of infinite sets as is easily justified is .assigned to those sets which are related in a reciprocal onetoone correspondence to the first numberclass and aocordingly have the same power as that But as yet there has been lacking an equally simple, natural definihigher power s,
Our
above mentioned numberclasses of the definiteinfinite
integers are now seen as the natural representatives, presented in unified 'form, of the orderly ascending succession of powers of welldefined sets. I
sert specifically that the power of the second numberclass (II) differs not from the power ot the first numberclass, but that it is in fact the next we may call it the second power or the power of the second class. the third numberclass gives rise to the definition of the third
mOl'le'r
or the power of the third class, etc.
§ 2.
Another important gain which is attributable to these new is acquired, for me at least, in a new concept, now appearing for the first time, that of the enumeral (Anzahl) of a wellordered (wohlgeordneten) ... infinite manifold (Mannichfaltigkeit); since this concept is always expressible
a completely determined number of our extended number domain so far as the order of the elements is determined in a manner immediately to be defined and since also the notion of enumeration representation (Anzahlbegiff) finds a directly objective
SO
in our intuition (inneren Anschauung),
is the reality of the
demonstrated even for the cases in which they are definiteinfinite,
97.
through this connection between enumeral and number.
By
a wellordered
set is Jll3:ant every welldefined
set \'lhose
elements are connected with each other by a definite prescribed succession, according to which there exists a first elament of the set and, further, every element of which is followed in case it is not the last in the succession by another ~nich is determinate, and also to eve~J finite or infinite subset of which there exists an element which is next in the succession to all the e1ements of that subset (unless it happens that there is no successor to the ps.rticular subset selected).

[549] Two wellordered sets are said to be of
the same enumeral (With respect to the particular prescribed succession) when a onetoone reCiprocal correspondence of such a kind is possible
J
that, if E
and F are any two elements of the one, El and PI the corresponding clements of the other, then the position of E and F in the succession of the first set is
in agreement with the position of El and Fl in the succession of the second set,
such that.t if E precedes F in the succession of the first set, then El precedes F1in the succession of the second set. This correspondence if at all possible,
is, as is easily seen, always a completely determined one and since in the extended number series :there exists one and on1yone nwnber 0(
, such that the
numbers which precede it (from 1 on) in the natural succession have the same enumera1, one is compelled to set the enumaral of both of these wellordered sets as 0(
I
,if
ex:
is an infinitely large number and as the number 0( 1
which immediately precedes 0( , if
ex
is a finite integer.
The essential difference between finite and infinite sets is seen in this, that a finite set gives rise to the same enumera1 (Anzah1) of elements in every succession which one may impose upon its elements; while a sct composed of an infinity of elements will in general lead to different enumerals depending upon the succession which may be given its elements. The
power of a set, as we have seen, is a property independent of the ordering;
i
98.
themumeral. is seen to be a property depending in general upon a given There
JII
',
~.
succession of elements, as soon as it is a question of infinite sets.
is, nevertheless, even in the case of infinite sets, a certain relationship between the power of the sct and the enumeral of its elements determined by a given succession. First, if we take a set which has the power of the first class, and give to its elements!!!.! determined succession so that it becomes a IIwellordered" set, its enumeral is always a definite number of the second numberclass and can never be dlilterminedby the number of any other than the second numberclass,
On the other hand, every set of the first power
may be. ordered in such a succession that its enurnerai, with respect to this
euceesedcn; becomes equal to any preassigned number of the second numberclass.
We can express
these theorems as follows:
every set whose power is of the
first clae;.s countable (abzWbar) 'is
by numbers of the second numberclass
and only by such, [550] and it is always possible to give to the set such a succession
o.t
its elements that it is countable in this succession by
any
arbitrarily chosen number of the second numberclass, which number is given by the enumernl of the elements of the set with respect to thnt succession. Analogous laws hold for sets of higher powers.
Every well
defined set whose power is of the second class is countable by numbers of the third numberclass an~ only by such, and further it is always possible to give such a succession to its elements that it is countable* by any arbitrarily chosen number of the third numberolass, Which number is determined by the enumeral of the elements of the set with respect to that succession. *Tha.t which I·have called ",countable" (abz5hlbar) in the earlier numbers of this work, is, according to the sharper and more general definition which I have now introduced, nothing more than "countability" (or enumorability) (Abzahlbarkeit) by n~ers of the first class (finite se~s) or by numbers of the second 'cle.ss (sots of the first power).
,"',
I
I:
.",
;j
..,
~i
I
:)
99.
The ~oncept of the wellordered
J
" 3.
set turns out to be fundamental
for the whole theory of sets. Whether it is possible to reduce every welldefined set to the form 'of a wellordered one, a fundamental and very useful

law of thought especially remarkable for its universal validity  will be taken up in a Inter article*. the concept of the wellordered Here I restrict myself to proving how out of set the fundamental operations for the integers can be derived in a very simple manner
whether finite or definiteinfinite,
and how the laws governing these operations follow directly with apodictic certainty from intuition ( inneren Anschauung). If two wellQrdered sets
M and Ml are given whose enumerals correspond to the numbers then M + Ml is also a weUordered
ex
and
f3 '
set, which results if first the set M is and united with itj there then
considered and is followed by the set ~
corresponds to the set M + Ml a determinate number as enumeral in relation to the given succession of its elements; let this number be called the sum of
0(
ex
and ~
,and
designated as, ~
+~
; it is at once seen ..that, if differs in general from ~ + ~ It is now
50
and ~
are not both
finite ..C( + ~
•
The commutative law ceases to hold in general for addition.
simple to construct the concept of the sum of several given terms (SUmmanden) of given sequence, even to the extent of considering a succession which is itself a definiteinfinite one, [551] that I need not go into further detail
and need only remark that the associative law is seen to be of universal vali*Translator's Note: The celebrated proof of Zermelo that such a reduction is always possible has given rise to heated contnJversies. The postulate, usually call~d the axiom of choice, upon which his proof rests, has not been .acepted by some as of universal validity.
100.
dity. In particular
cc + (~
...we have:
...
r ) = (0< + ~ J + r .
elements equals determined by the num
If one takes a sequence of sets all of which are alike and similarly 0( ber
J
ordered and for each one of Whichthe enumeral of its and if the succession of the sets is definitely
t' ' then one obtains
the definition
,
a new wellorgered set whose corresponding enumeral
O(~ ,
I Ii:
offers
for t?e product
where ~
is the multiplier
and ex. from
the multiplicand;
O(~
here also, it turns out that in general the cOnmnltativelaw for multiplication law for multiplication
(3o<.
differs
that is,
is not generally valid.
· But the associative
always holds, so that we have
O«(~r) =(D(~)('
Among these new numbers someare distinguished that they possess the prime number property, · be characterized in a very definite although this from others' in property mst now
"
way by saying that by a prime number is
0( ::
"meant a number for Whieh the factOring: is only possible When ".the multiplicand
p;:
"
(3 G '
.
where ~
is the nn.1l.tiplier,
1 or ~ =
ex. ;
In
but in general for prime numbers 0(
will have a certain region of indeterminacy which in the
spite of this, as will be shown in a prime factors in (in
· nature of things can not be changed. · later
"
.
article,
a number can be expressed in terms of its
essentially
only one way, and with respect to the sequence of its factors
so far as these are not neighboring finite duct) •
prime numbers appearing in the proprime numbers are found of to the finite prime numbers, different charac
Accordingly two kinds of definiteinfinite stands in a closer relationship
"Which the first
while the prime numbers of the second Idnd have an entirely
tell.
Further, knowledge to establish of my article,
it now becomes possible with the help of this new a theorem which appears at the conclusion
rigorously
IIAcontribution
to the theory of ma.nifoldslt (Borchardt.t s Journal; linear infinite manifolds.
Vol. 84, p. 257) on the socalled
101.
In the last issue (4) of this article (Vol. XXI, p. 54) I ved a_theorem for pointsets continuous region, P which are contained in an ndimensional as follows by applying the new, well
which can be stated
,defined terms (Ausdrucksweisc): (Ableitimg)
lilt P is a pointset whose deriva.tive Where
P (01)vanishes identicallY~
0<.
is an;y arbitrarily
chosen inp(l)
II
teger of the first or second numberclass, ,therefore P itself, is a pointset
then the first derivative
, and
of. the pOwer of the
.!l!:S.
class.
It seems
rather remarkable that this
theorem has a converse Whichcan be expressed as Whosefirst derivative of the ~ has the power of or second numberhaving
~';
,
IIIf p [552] is a pointset
=. class,
,this property,
then there exist integers
0(
class, for which P (oe) identically there is a least".
vanishes ~ and of all the numbers 0(
I shall very shortly publish
the proof of this
theorem, at the
suggestion of my distinguished
friend, Prof. llittagLeffler
in stock
in the first volume of the new mathematical the conclusion of :which he will
Dzy'
journal which he will edit. will add an appendix in
article
Herr MittagLeffler
show, how on the basis of this theorem an important generaliza
can be given his investigations and those of Prof. Weierstrass on the
of singlevalued analytic
functions with given singular points.
The extended series of integers, if there is need to do so can be enlarged quite simply into a continuous numberset by merely adjoining to every integer C( , nIl real numbers x which are greater than zero and less than
I
, ,
:' . I ~i
Perhaps at this point the question will suggest itself, Whether, since in the manner described a definite extension of the region of real n~ bers into the infinitely great has been attained it would not be possible to
do the same with equal success for the infinitely small, or, what might turn
Ii"
I
1\
,
'
102. out to be the same, 'Whether it would be possible to define finite numbers (which would appear as limiting values of series of irrational numbers) which would not coincide with either the rational or irrational numbers but would insert themselves among the real numbers as the irrational numbers among the rational or the transcendental algebraic numbers. The question of the establishment of such interpolations
Dzy'
numbers into the texture of the
upon which some authors have expended considerable effort, can, in ion,and
opin
as I shall show, be answered precisely and clearly first with the
aid of our neW numbers and particularly on the basis of the universal concept of enumeration of wellordered ·sets; While the previous attempts, as it seems to me, rest partly upon a confusion between the idealinfinite and
the .actual infinite, partly upon a thoroughly unsound and Wllvering foundation. The idealinfinite has often been characterized by recent
philosophers as a IIbadll (schlcchtes) infinite, in my opinion quite unjustly since it has shown itself to be a very good and highly useful instrument in mathematics and the natural sciences. ti~ies, so far The [553] infinitely small quan
as I know,
have until now been usefully devcloped only in the and are as such ca.pable of aU those variations,
form of the idealinfinite moditiccDions
and interrelations
which are employed in infinitesimal analy
sis as well as in function theory and ~nich necessarily arise if the rich harvest of analytic truths is to be gathered. this infinitely small into an actualinfinitely nbendoned as to no purpose. But all attempts to force small must finnIly be small quantities
If somehow actualinfinitely
did exist, i.e. were definable, they would certainly stand in no direct relationship to those familiar quantities which are in the process of becoming infinitely s~
103.
In contrast
to these attempts to advance through the infinitethe two forms of the infinite there is frequently
ly small and to ~terchange
found a point of view on the nature and meaning of numerical quantities denies the actual ~s.tence
~ ..
'
of any other numbers than the integers
of our n~

which
barclass
(I) .. At most a cert~in reality is granted the rational But as for the irrationals, numbers which they are
proceed eo di~ctly
from the integers.
to be assigned l~:rely a formal meaning in pure nathematics, in that they serve ~ some ~erse as signs useful for calculation (Rechenmarken), for es
tabl,ishing pr?pert:1.e$ of groups of integers uriifying ,laY._ exclusively
and describing these in a simple, is composed, in this opinion, and analy
The actual JlBterial of analysis
of f:i,nite, real integers
and all truths in arithmetic
sis already discovered or still tionships of the finite integers
to be discovered muet be looked upon as relato each other; the infinitesimal analysis (legalisirt)
and with it the theory of functions ,are considered to be legalized only in so far as their the finite integers.;
theorems are demonstrable through laws holding for With this conception of pure mathematics, although I are undeniably associated certain advan
am not at all in agreement with it,
tages, which I should here like to emphasize; for the importance of this point of view bespeaks the fact that amongits most meritorious mathematicians oftha followers belongs a group of the
present day. integers exist and
If, as is here assumed, only the finite all else is nothing other than forms of relationships then it for their can be expected that the proofs of analytical
(Beziehungsformen), theorems can be tested
"numberbheory content" and that every gap which appears in them out according to the basic prinCiples of arithmetic; of such a "fillingout" is to be seen the true criterion in the for
can be filled feasibility
the genuinesa and complete rigor of the proofs. that in this way the establishment
[554] It is not to be denied
of many theorems may be fully achieved and
104. improvements in method introduced in various fields of analysis i there is
in the strict observance of the principles Which flow from this point of
, a guarantee against every kind of nonsense or error. In this way a definite, if somellhat overrestrl'.ined and obprinciple is set up, that is recommended to all as a test; it should serve show any flight of mathematical speculation and fancy its true limits, with
runs no danger of hurtling into the abyss of the "transcendental", it is said in tear and wholesolOO alarm that "anything is possible". knows, for it is an uncertain matter, if it was not merely the point of of usefulness which actuated the authors of this principle to recommend
t to those soaring forces Which so easily encounter danger through their excess
immoderation, as an effective regulation for their protection against all
H'""):r~,
although a fruitful prinCiple can not be found therein; for the assump
that they themselves in finding new truths had proceeded from these princiis for me out of the question in that I, however good some pages of their
may be, Dillstregard them in the strictest sense as erroneous; we owe to
principles no true advances and if their recoomaaaat10Qshad
'lnJ'lF!'r'IFf'!n,
been fully
science would have been retarded or at least hemmed by the narrowest Fortunately matters are really not that bad and the observanoe of
rules as Vlell as obedienoe to them ..useful, under some circumstanoes and never been taken entirely literally; also, up
to now, so far
strikingly true that no one who has made the attempt has been formulate the proper rule better or more fully than is here attempted
If we look about in history it appears that similar views often been adva~ced qnd even as early as Aristotle, It is well known that coming from But if one con
middle ages the principle of "infinitum actu non dctur1t, was accepted by all the scholastics as inviolable.
arguments vmich Aristotle ~ presented against the real existence
10;.
the infinite
t they
(vid.
his Metaphysics, Book XI. Chap. 10) I it will be found mich involves
reter back to an assumption,
.
.
a petitio
.
principii,
'c
the
ILss,um;pvJ~on, namely, that there are only finit9 numbers, from which he concluded
to him only enumerations (Z'hlungen)
of finite
sets were recognizable.
I
that I have proven above and it will appear even more clearly in what
IU.l..L .....IVQ
in this
paper (555] that determinate enumerations of infinite
sets can
just
as well as
ot
finite
ones, assuming tha.t a definite
law is given
sets by which they become wellordered.
~l;Jg ......
That without such an ordered euethis lies in
",u of the elements of a set
no enUmeration can be made 
nature of the concept enumeration; even for finite
made o~v in case there is a definite
sets an enumeration can
succession of the elements to be enurnera.sets is seen, namely, order
except also that here a peculiar property of finite the enumeration ; While for infinite
,
the enumeral 
is independent of the particular
sets as we have seen, such an independence is in general
the case , but the enwneral of an infinite
set is given by the infinite
inte
which deterndnes
the nature essential
the pa.rticular
law of enumeration; it is in thiS, embedded
never to be gotten rid of, that one finds
of things and therefore difference
be"tween the finite
and the infinite;
never a,ga.incan
existence ot the infinite of the finite
be denied because of this
difference,
but ra.ther
can now be firmly maintained;
if one of the two is abandoned,
other must go also; where should we be then? Another argument advanced by Aristotle against the reality of and nwnber
infinite
stroyed
consists
in the assumption that the finite it' it (the infinite) existed,
would be dissolved since the finite is in truth
by the infinite
nllegedly
destroyed by the "infinite; seen, tha.t to a infinite a finite
the situation
as follows as
llill be clearly
number if it is thought of as detemin·
~e nnd complete (vollendet) i
number can indeed be adjoined and united
)ut affecting
the dissolution
of the latter
(the finite
n~~r)
 the innumber; only
tnite number is itself
modified by such an adjunction of a finite
106. reverse procedure, the adjunction of an infinite latter is given first, effects the dissolution
ting any modification .infinite, to analysis entirely of the former. number to a finite one if
of the latter Without introview of the finite and
This corrected
unknown to Aristotle,
should give new stimulation the natural sciences.
not only '
1,1
but to other sciences,
particularly
I have been logically
gards the infinitely
forced to the point of view which re~thout in
I'
,
great not merely in the form of that Which increases
related form of convergent series first
·lilnit and in the closely
introduced
the seventeenth century, but also [556] which fixes (fixiren) it by numbers in
·the determinate form of the completedinfinite (vollendctunendlich)  I have
been forced to this
point of view almost against my will since it is in opposi
to traditions.which
on over long years,
I value, by scientific
and I believe
studies
and investigations
car
that no arguments can be advanced against
.it which I shall not know how to ~et.
§ 5.
When I just now spoke of traditions, I Wo.s thinking rather of them to the
not in the narrower sense of that Which has long passed,' but refer founders of the newer philosophy and science.
As a means of passing judgment
. on the question which is being brought up here, I submit some of the most impor. ta.nt references.
The following should be consulted:
and XVII.' Descartes J Letters
Locke, Essay on the human understanding, Book II, Chaps. XVI
and comments on his meditations; also Principia I, 26. Spinoza,' Letter XXIX; cogitnta metaph. parts I and II. Le1bnitz, ErdmrumEdition, pageS'l3BJ 244, 436,· 744; Pertz
307, 322, ~;
Edition, II, I, page 209; III, 4, page 218; III, 5, pages III, 7, page 273*. Hobbes, de corpore cap, VII, 11. of human knowledgeJ CXCVIII  CXXXI.
*1'hl3
following are also of interest: Berkeley J TrcC'.tise on the principles
107.
Stronger arguments than these against the introduction integers of in
can hardly be imagined even today; let these arguments be exA detailed and thorough discussion of and significant letter of
amined and compared in turn with mine.
these references as well as of the very pertinent
Spinoza to L. Meyerwill be reserved for another occasion, for the momentI have merely the following to say·. Howeverdifferent their judgmept of the finite the doctrines of these writers may be, in they all
and infinite
in the above references
.. essentially infinite
agree that finiteness
is a property of number and that the true As to the latter
or Absolute, which is God, permits no determination.
: of these two points I fully
agree as it cannot be otherwise since the theorem beside the point; but as as I have already pointed
"onmis determinatio est negatioll is tor me entirely . to the first point I see in it a petitio principii,
out in my discussion of Aristotle's
argument against the "infinitum actu'J, to be found in nearly all these The assumption that besides
#
which throws light on $1Y contradictions writers but particularly
in Spinoza and Leibnitz.
the Absolute which is not obtainable by any detennination
and the finite,
[557]
......... ... J_.~~
diction
are no modifications which, although not finite,
nevertheless 
are deter
numbers and are therefore
what I call the actualinfinite
this assumption
: I find to be thoroughly untenable and it stands, in my opinion in actual contrato certain theorems proposed by the Last, two. philosophers in the above have demonstrated in this work as there is a trahs
references.
What I declare and believe·to papers, is, 
well as in earlier finite
that following the finite
(transfinitum)
which might also be called
supra..,.finite (suprafinitum):
that is, there is an unlimited ascending ladder of nodes, Which in its nature
is not finite determinate, but infinite, welldefined but which can be deterndn~d as can the finite and distinguishable, quantities numbers. It is ~ by
conviction and
that the region of definable that the limits
is not exhausted with the finite
of our knowledge may be accordingly extended without doing our
lOS.
I now modify the Aristotelianscholastic sed in paragraph 4 as follows ~ theorem dis
Omnia seu finita
deter.minari possunt.'l The finiteness the reason why only finite :assertion
seu infinita
definita et excepto Deo ab
of humanunderstanding is often advanced as
numbers are conceivable; but again I see in this It is tacitly assumed that
the vicious circle already mentioned.
"finiteness
of understanding" is meant that its
grasp with respect to num
bers is limited to the finite.
But if it turns out that in a determinate infinite, that is supra
. sense the understanding can also define and distinguish finite
(..iberendliche)numbers, then either the words llfinite understanding"
be given an enlarged meaning,
from Ylhich the aforementioned conclusion "infinitell must be permitted the
'can no longer be drawn; or the predicate
understanding with certain qualifications, this latter being in my opin10n the right procedure. The words "finite understanding" which one hears so may be,
.
.often in no way hit the mark; however limited in truth human nature
.it still
partakes greatly
of the infinite
infinite,
and
! declare that if in many reas to
spects it were not itself the existence . In particular
the firm conviction and certainty
of the Absolute, to Which \'Ie. all agree, would be inexplicable • I submit the thought that the human understanding is an unbounded
abode for the stepb,ystep construction of the integer numberclasses, which " stand in definite relationships to the infinite modes and whose powers are of ascending magnitude. The chief difficulties in the systems of the two lastnamed philosophers, which outwardly are so different but in an inner sense are so closely related, may be brought nearer to a solution, as I believe, if the point of view suggested by me be adopted, and some of the difficulties may now be entirely satisfactorily solved and explained. It is these very diffi
culties which have given rise to later criticism, which, in turn, for all its
109.
s has not assured a suitable substitute for the retarded development doctrines of Spinoza and Leibnitz. Alongside or in place of the mechani
explanation of nature, Which, inside its spheres has all the aids and res of mathem9.tical analysis at its disposal but whose onesidedness and weaks have been strikingly pointed out by Kant, there has been up to now.not the beginning of an attempt to create an organic eXplanation of ~~ture which
be
equipped with the same nathematical rigor; ground can be broken for such
attempt, as I believe, only by taking up afresh the works of these philosophers continuing them.
An especially
difficult point in Spinoza' s system' is the rela;I I~
~9'ne~!'L
to the infinite or the infinite with respect to still higher infinities.
example already touched upon in paragraph 4 seems in its simple symbolism to way along which one can come nearer perhaps to a solution of this If'tJJ is the first number of the second numberclass, 1 then 1 + tJ = GJ ,
Ii
=
{(N
+ 1), where (W + 1) is a number entirely distinct from (J •
depends as is here clearly seen, upon the position (Stellung) of the relative to the infinite; in the first case tho finite is absorbed into infinite and Vanishes, but if it modestly takes its plnca ~ the infinite
intact and unites with the infinite to form a new (since modified)
e 6.
If difficulties (~bgeschlossene) arise in imagining such infinitJl~ great, segreintegers, which nre comparable to each other and to the
.finite integers, and are bound to the finite numbers by fixed laws, it will be .found that these difficulties depend upon the realization that the new nwnbers
I'
have in some aspects the character of the preceding ones but from several other
I
,t··
I: L
t~
Ih
"J)
rio, s of view have an entirely
~"'I.lQU
new and peculiar
nature,
in that
it my often
that disparate
properties
(559] my be united in one and the same number,
number in which they are always separated. given in the preceding pa.rabe even as well
te unlike the case of the finite observation
is made in one of the references
that an·infinite
number if it existed would necessarily cannot coexist
and since the two properties such number exists. It is here tacitly have previously
in one and the same number,
assumed that properties
which for numbers
understood them are disjunct,
are equally so for the new of infinite numbers. or extenJ
IlWDnel's, and one. accordingly concluded the impossibility fails
to see this fallacy at a glance?
Isn't
every generalization
of concepts associated with the abandonment of certain unthinkable without it? Weren't complex quantities,
special properties so important for the
lopment of analysis
and leading to such tremendous advancements but recently
be
:nt'roclueedwithout seeing any hindrance in the fact that they can neither
,cu_~.'='u
positive
or negative?
And it ia only a similar
step that I amtaking
indeed it will probably be much easier
~"Eo",~.",."."
l1lml:ler's
for general conviction
Bewusstsein) to follow me, than was possible in the case of complex for the new integers, characterized (the finite as they are numbers), Whereas the until their
emerging from the real;
a more intensive
determinacy than their
predecessors as these
enumerals the same kind of reality of complex quantities representation trouble. To return briefly us look agsdn at the number G.) those properties
poe4e'h'8aers
was accompanied with difficulties
by' points or vectors in the plane was found after
to the consideration ,in
of oddness and eveness,
order to show, how in it may be found number. In were given and I
which are never united in a finite of addition and multiplication
ph 3 general definitions
ill.
lPU<<2.P ..
"~g~ the fact that in these operations the conunutative law had no validisaw an essential difference between finite and infinite numbers. ~ by
in this.1
I remind you that in a product the multiplicand.
pot
by ~
I understand the mu1 tiplier
Twoforms are immediately found for
CM
6J: eN ::: (,) • .t. and
• Accordingly (.J
be thought of as an even and as an odd numeven
in
Fromanother point of view it can also be said that GJ is neither odd, since, as can be easily proven, G.)
is neither [560] representable to its
form ~.o{ nor in the form
L~'.U·~ predecessors
3.0(
+I
•
The number 6J in contrast peculiar nature,
has therefore
an entirely
since all these
s and characters
are united in it.
Evert more strange are the succeedshow.
numbers of the second number class as I shall later
Although in paragraph 5 I have cited many passages in Leibniz t; in which he speeks against infinite
........ """, ... , 11 II
numbers, in that he says amongother ni de ligne ou autre quanti te infinia,
It
n I y a point de nombre Wini
les prend pour des Touts veritables. ation,c'est forme un finill 1labsolu; au contraire,
"L'infini
v6ritnble
n ' est pas une
d~s qU'on modifie on se borne ou statement, but
(in the latter
quotation I agree with the first
,not with the second), nevertheless to cite diets
lam in the fortunute position of being able sense contrn
passages of the arume philosopher in which he in a certain himself for the actualinfinite
himself and declares
(not the Absolute)
. in no ambig'llousway.
He says in the Erdm.'UlIl edition, pour l'infini
P. 118:
1,';1"
t"
"Je suis tellement que la nature l'abhorre, partout,
actuaL, qu'au lieu d+admet.t.re
je tiens qu'elle l'affecte
comme lion dit vulgairement,
pour mieux nk~rquerles perfections
de son Auteur.
Ainsi je crois qulil mais
nly a aucune p~rtie de 10 mnti~re qui ne soit, aetuellament divise6;
je no dis pas divisible,
at p~r consequent la moindre partice1le de creatures
doit etre consider
/ ee comme mondeplein dt une infinite un
differentes.1I
ID.
';f'Lc' '.
The actualinfinite,. sets or in the constitution
as for example it is found 1nwelldefined of bodies from pointlike atoms
r'"t
....
:;"j;
(I
don't mean
chemicalphysical atoms of Democritus which I can not regard as existent ther conceptually or really, up .to a certain point by this although muchthat is useful hee been achieved fiction), has fO\Uldits.st critical defender
'':::'.;
in a
very keenminded philosopher and. mathematician of our century, Bernhard and valuable wo rk,
Balzano who has developed his ideas in his beautiful
"+
·riparadoxesof the infinite that the contradicti~s
II ,
Leipzig, 1851, Whosepurpose it is to demonstrate of
::'ro
':an times have investigated,
)Slight,
'It::'
4·. 11';
of the infinite which the sceptics and peripatetics
do not exist if one takes the trouble,
not always
to refiect
c()llscientiously upon the concepts of infinity
. •
in their true
ftthe idealinfinite,
$rdifferentials
iJlr.'aelrie~s or
/k" "~nature and content.
In this book [561] is also to be found a discussion of pertinent in ma.tzy points, as it appears in the form of
of the first
and higher orders or in the swmnationof infinite processes. 'l'his infinite (called by some scholastics
other limiting
syncategorematic infinite) •to express relations,
is merely a concept of our thought to aid and included variability and of which
which in his definition
the "daturll can never be said in sense .f the actual. It is' rather remarkable that ~ ldth respect to this kind of no essential . philosophers, positivists infinite, differences of opinion prevail even amongpresentday
except for the fact that certain modern schools of socalled or realists4); or materialists believe that in this sYpcategorematic
of which they themselves must admit that it has no actual being,
they see the highest concept (h~chsten Begriff). Even in Leibniz an essentially correct point of view is found to this idealinfinite,
in many passages; the folloWing for example refers Erdmannedition p. 436:
Ego philosophice loquendo non magis sta~u. rnagnitudines infinite parvas quam infinite magnas seu non J1I!.gis , infinite simas quaminfinituplas.
us.
,ri:l.,ClI.I"'LC
enim per modum loquendi compendiosum pro mentis fictionibus habeo , ad aptis, quales etiam. sunt radices ilnaginariae':inAlgebra. Interim
vi, magnum. has expressiones usum habere ad. compendium cogitandi adeoque
inventionem; et in errorem ducere non posse, cum. .pro infinite parvo substituere ficiat tam parvum. quam quis valet, ut error sit in1nor dato, unde consequitur
,
j"
Bolzano is perhaps the only one for whom there is a justification actualinfinite numbers, at least he says a great deal about them; but I
disagree with the nammer in which he operates with them without being to give a correct definition of th~m and'I regard, 'for example, paragraphs 33 of his book as errcneous and neaningless. The author, fails to give any
ble concept of definiteinfinite
. •• $
nwnberfj:)or the general concept of power, It is true'that germs of both these
the precise concept of enumerability.
are found here and there in special instances but he fails to develop these to full clesrity and determinacy, thereby failing to explicate many inconstencies and even
many
errors in this worthy book.
Witholit these two concepts, in my conviction, one can not advance
.... ... ''''rn _
in the theory of sets and the same holds, I believe, of the fielcm Which
subsumed under it or have close a~sociation with it, [562] ,for example, rootheory on one side and logic and epistemology on the other. When
the infinite, as I have done in this an~ my earlier works there a genuine pleasure to which 1 thankfully yield, in seeing how the concept integer which,for the finite case has only the background of enumeration, when ascend to the infinite, separates into two concepts, one of power which is of the order which is given the elements of a set, and one of enumerais necessarily associated with a definite ordering of the set by virtue of Which the latter becomes wellordered. And if I descend again from the infi"
the finite i see how equally clearly and beautifully, the two concepts and c'oalesce to form the concept of finite integer.
114.
S
8.
We can speak of the reality or existence of the mtegers" finite or infinite, in two senses:
in fact they are the same two
ionships in which the reality of any concepts or ideas are to be oonsiFirstly, integers may be considered real in so far as they occupy an definite place in our understanding on the basis of definitions, can precisely differentiated from all other parts of our thought and stand in relationships to those parts" and accordingly modify the substance thought (Geistes) in a determinate fashion; I propose to call this kind reality of our numbers their intrasubjective· or imnanent reality 5) • Sec. i.
, reality can be ascribed to numbers In so far as they must be taken a.s
is exterior to the intellect, as, for instance, the various number·,classes (1) (II) (III) etc. are representatives of powers which are actually
'.
'
.found in corporeal. and intellectual (geistigen) nature.
, "r,
This second species
of reality 1 call the transsubject:i..ver transient reality of the integers. o In lieu of the thoroughly realistic but at the same time none idealistic basis of mY considerations, there is no doubt in ~ mind that these two spheres of reality are always found together in the sense that a concept said to exist [5~3] in the first sense always also posse~ses in certain and even in an infinity of ways a transient reality ~" whose dcterrrd.na
tion it must be gr~~ted becomes for the most part one of the most troublesome and profound problems of metaphysics nnd must frequently be left to times· in which the natural development of one of the other sciences eventually reveals the trnnsient meaning of the concept in question. The connection of both realities has its peculiar foundation in the unity (Einheit) of the !!l(Alls), to which we ourselves belons. A
mention of this connection has only the value here of enabling one to derive from it a result which seems of very great consequence for mathe~~tics, namely,
115. it· (mathematics) in the construction of its ideas has ~
" .;"
and ·solely
take account of the immanent reautY· of: its concepts and hae no obllgation'"'·
..
.
''''::IT ........,... ' .
to make test~ fo~·'their transient
reality.
On account of this

singular position which differentiate~ it from all of the other sciences and
affords
an explanation
for the comparatively easy and unrestrained
manner With
which one may operate with it, it particularly deserves the name of free mathematics.(treien precedence Mathematik), a designati.on which if I had my way, would take
over the usual exprese:ion
"pure"
mathematics"
Mathematics is ent1rely tree "in its deve.Lcpment,and is only
selfevident
restriction
that its c.oncepts must be consistent
with
·~aoh.~ther and stand in dete~ate
(through definitions), orderly relationships
~~ th?se concepts which have preceded, these being already present and established
1.).
It
(mathe~ttc~) is obligated when new nwnbers are introduced to give
of them by·which such a determinacy and, under conditions such a
.
.
def~t~ons
. rela.tions.hip to the older numbe%'si~ granted them, that they can in any given
. ,case be definitely distinguished fies real, all
from each other~
As soon ax a number satis
these conditions it must be regarded as m&thematically existent and
. . I see the reason given in paragraph 4 why the rational,
It is in this that
irra.t.ionaland the complex numbers are to be considered finite poeit1ve integers.
as
much existent
as the
There is no need, as I believe, of fearing any danger to the
I'
sciences in these principles, as many thi.nJC: the conditions imposed under which the freedom of constructing numbers can be excercised ~re of such a kind that they permit very little room for arbitrary action {Spiclraum); for every mnthem?tical concept carries within itself the necessary corrective; if it is
,
t ' "
fruitless ~nd purposeless, that is soon seen and it will [564] because of little success be abandoned. to mathematical
But I regard every superfluous restriction on the urge
investigation as creating a much grente'r danger and all the
greater since no justification can be advanced from the nature
of
the science;
us,
nature (Wesan) of mathematics lies in its very freedom. If this property of mathematics had not been deducible from the
ve·Rmeln~ionedreasons, the very development of the science itself as it has would have inevitably led to the same conclusions. If Gauss, Cauchy, Abel, Jacobi, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Hermite·
Riemann had been forced always to submit their new ideas to a metaphysical (Controlle), we should certainly not now enjoy the magnificent structure
new theory of functions which, although created and erected in full freewithout transient purpose nevertheless reveals its transient meaning in
to mechanics, astronomy, and mathematical physiCS, as was to be we should not be witnessing the great advance in the theory of dif~eI"1em:'1.au.
equations through Fuchs, Poincare and
many
others, if these great in
forces had been restrained &Od restricted by outside influences; and Kummer had not allowed himself full freedom in his successful introduction 1I1d"alJ' numbers into number theory, we should today not be in a position of .the jmportant and excellent algebra.ic and arithematical WJrks of
How justified mathematics
'from. all metaphysical
is in moving with complete freedom
fetters, I do not, however, grant the same right to
.lIappliedtl mathematics as for examp'le analytic mechanics and mathem.~tticD.l physics; these di"iplines .are iri Jl\Y opinion in their founda'td.oneas well as in their if they strive to free themBelves from it as has been re2.
aims, metaphysical; cently suggested by
celebrated physicist, they take on
the form of a IIdes
cription of nature", in which is lacking not only the fresh a.ir of free mathemetical thought but also the power of explaining (Erkl~rung) and laying the foundations (Ergr&ndting) of natural phenomena.
117.
Because of the great
/
significance
mioh is attached
.
to 1'eal"
and irrational
nutbbers in the theory of manifolds,
I 4d not Wish I am not going
omit to say some important things about their definitions.
speak of the introduction rigorous of the rational
numbers in any detail
[565]
arith uet.1c' presentations
have frequently
been made; among
se with Which 1 ammost familiar
.
Arithmetik,
. Berlin, 1861) and J. H. T • Mtill.er(Lehrbuch der allgemeinen ArithI do" however" though briefly .. "Wish to speak in more (with Which I am familiar and which
I single out H. Grassmann (Lehrbuch der
, Hille, 1855).
detail
of the three lending definitions identical)
·probably are essentially
which have been proposod for int~oducL~g arithmetical
the general real number in a rigorous is the form which Prof'. Weierstrass lectures on analytic functions
way_
The first
of these
has made use of for many years in his of which are to be found in
and some traces
the Prograrmnabha.ndlung of Herr. Berlin,
E. Kossak. (Die Elemente der Arithmetikj
1872).
The second i{3 an unusual form. published by Herr Dedekind
Continuity and irrational numbers, Brunswick" 1872 and the (Math. Annalen,
in his work; third
is a form of definition given by me in the year Ian has a certain ~
Vol. V, p. 123);1 which superficially
similarity to Weierstrass' Mathematik und Physik"
form, so much so that HerrH. Weber (Zeitschrift
27 Jahrg., historisch liter. Abth., p. 163) confused the two; in my opinion
this third, later developed by Herr Lipschitz (Grundlagen der Analysis, of all and one finds in it the Calculus.
Bonn, 1877), is the simplestand JOOstnatural advantage that it
is most directly applicable
to the analytic
For the definition of an irrational ~lways associated rational numbers; a welldefined infinite
real number there is of
set of the first power,
this is commonto all forms of definition,
the difference
..........
lies in the manner of generation by which the set is connected with the
118~
to be defined, and in the conditions
"'~JI&"""""
which the set has to .fulfill to definition.
it as ba.sis for" the particular
In case of the first det~tion a set of positive" rational
era By is assumed, designated by (ay) and ful1'i~ing
the condition,
that,
any given number of numbers, s~lected in any way, but finite,
is chosen which can be shown
summed, the sum. so formed always remains less than the limit
If two such aggregates three
"' i
I ~;',". Ii',
(av) and Catv) are given, it is rigorously
cases can ari~e; either every part ~ of unity is contained equally"
l~ )
orten in both aggregates, so tar as one ~
: (Anzahl) of t~rms as large as one pleases;
the elements in a finite number or, from a given n on
.
1. is n
contained . "
always more otten in the first aggregate than in the second, or thirdly,
.! , n
from a given p. on is contained [566] in the second aggregate more often than Corresponding to these cases, if band b' are the numbers to be defined by the aggregates (ay) and (a'v)' respectively, in the first case we
b I, in the second b
>b
J
and in the third
case b
<
b! ,
If the
two aggregates are combined to torm a new one (ay" atv), this
for the definition of b + b'; the new aggregate
forms the basis
if from each of the aggregates (ay) and (atv) of
(a .at
all
ay
.v
v
)
is formed in mich ,the elements are the products
and all a'vt this new aggregate forms the basis for the definition of
It ts seen that the motivating principle of generation Which
the product bb! ,
associates the set with the numbers to be defined by it, lies in the formation of sums; but it must be emphasized as essential that only the summation of an always finite number (Anzahl) of rationaJ..elements is performed and that the number b to be defined is not set at the start as equal to the sum ~ the infinite series
logical
By a.
of
Cay);
if this were done, the procedure would contain of the sum
error since the definition
;£ av is not reached
(gewonnen)
until it is set equal to the number b already defined.
I believe that this
logical error first pointed out by Herr Weierstrass was in earlier times in
119. versal practice and was not noticed because it belongs to those rare cases mich actual errozs.of reasoning do no appreciable harm to calculations.
S5
in my opinion all those difficulties which are found in the concept
,irrational depend on this error, Which if avoided, leads to a concept of
""'U ... V',la. .......
ty which is as determinately and as clearly lodged in our minds as
/
t of r~tional number. The definition of Herr Dedekind considers the totality of all rational numbers, divides these into two groups in such a way, that, if the numoere of the first group are designated by Ay, those of the second group by then always c~ls
A"
<
By; such a partition of the rational numbers Herr Dede
a cut* (Schnitt), desi~ates
it bY. (Av/
. I\r)
and assccd.at.es with
. t a number b.
If two such cuts are compared, one finds as for the first de
tinition, three possibilities of which the two numbers b and bl corresponding two cuts are either equal or b
>
b' or b
< ~'.'
The first case occurs,
tor certain easily regulated modifications which must be made if the numbers to be defined are rationnl,if the two cuts are completely identical and here is seen the undeniable ~dvantage of this definition over the two [56,7] that every number b corresponds to a single cut, which circumhowever, has the great disadvantage that the numbers of analysis never appear in the form of "cuts" J into which form they must be brought with great art and ingenuit:v:. Then follow definitions of the sum b + b' and the product bb' from new cuts derived from the given ones. The disadvantage which is inherent in the ~ and ~ de
finitions is that here the srume, i.e. equal, numbers can be represented in an *Translatorls Note: ·Compare·]mclid's definitions V and VII, Book V, of magnitudes with this !lcut"of Dedekdnd,
""'Il
.
l
, ,
II!<
Ii'
!I
of ways and that a.ccordingly no general. unified view ot the entire
of real numbers is directly
120.
.
attainable.
This disadvantage can be easily .
by specializing singlevalued
the defining set in that one employs one of the well
systems as for instance the decimal system or a simple devel
continued fractions.
I come nowto the third
infinite
~et of rational
numbers (~)

definition
of real numberB. Here also
of the ~irst power is assumed, of which
.
.
demandanother property as in the Wiererstrass
.CIAo~'5
definition; , a finite
I require,
that,
any o.rbitrarily
small rational
numbcrC
number (Anza.hl) of
set can be removed, so that the remaining ones taken in pnirs have which in' absolute value is less than which also can be characterized
C
•
Every set (ay) of
by the requirement:
L i",
VcCF)
( 0. Y +)A 
a.V) =
0
(for any desired
I
}J.,
),
:.I call a fundamental series . to be defined,
(Fundamentalreihe) and associate
with it a numberb as is done at (Compare
for which one can well use the symbol (ny) itself,
the suggestion of Herr Heine after Borchardt's
many oral discussions with hin4
Journal, Vol. 74, p. 172).
Such a fundamental series presents three definitions; either the terms of
Cases as can be rigorously deduced from their the series a
v
for sufficiently
large values of yare
.
less in absolute value than v on they are greater than
any ar~itra.rily
assigned number; or, from a certain number
a deterndnable positive rational
a determinable negative quantity 
p.
p ; or,
from a certain v on less than case I say that b equals in the third,
In the first
zero, in the second, that b is greater that b is less than zero or negative.
than zero or is positive,
.~
I
Then comethe elementary operations. two [568J fundamental s:ries that (~
If (ay)
&ld
(a'v)
are
determining the nwnbers band bt , it can be shown are also fundamental series, which determine tbree b t. bl aad the
±
atv) and (ay.aty)
new numbers serving as def:initions product bb I •
of the sum and difference
121. If b is different from zero, a definition of which has just it can be shown that
~'~UV'~~J~
(:'_V)
v
is also a fundamental series, lIhose
bl b
number furnishes the definition for the quotient  • The elementary operations between a number b given by a tunda
(ay~ and a direct~
definitions, by setting al
given rational number a are included in the
v
equals a, bl equals a.
.
Then come definitions of equality, greater than and less than numbers b and bl (of which bl can also or b /' b I or b
<b
:: a) in that one can say that
,:1 :'i
:1'
f,
according as b  b f is equal to zero or great
zero or less than zero. After these preliminaties it turns out as a first rigorously .. emonstrable theorem, that, if b is a definite number determined by a fundad .mental series (By)
jI
then b  By with increasing values of v becomes less in
absolute value than every imaginable rational number, or what is the same thing, ,that: Lim 'f =
a.v
0i:I
~b
.
Care must be taken on this cardinal point (Cardinalpunct), \\hose meaning might be easily overlooked: in the third definition the number b is not defined as
the limit of the terms ay of a fundamentru..series (ay); since this VIOuld be a logical error similar to the one discussed for the first definition and indeed it is an error for the reason that the existence of the lL~t
.
L.~Clf
Y=fP
would be
presumed (pr~sumirt); the situation is rather the reverse, that through our previous definitions the concept b has been thought of with such properties and relationships to the rational numbers, that out of it the conclusion can I
" .. cP
,
be dravm vd th logical evidence that: L.im Q., exists and is equal to b.
hope to be pardoned the emphasis which I place on the following warning, that most persons pass over this seemingly smull detail and consequently land in perplexity and contradictions in relation to the irrational from which by fully observing this warning they might have spared themselves; they vrould then
122.
cl8a~ly seen that the irrational the definitions rational attains numberthrough the properties given in just as definite
[$69) a reality in our tninds as the
process is needed
or even the integer and that not even a limiting intelligibility
tor
its
but rather on the contrary through possession of it and evidence of limiting processes in
one i6 convinced of the feasibility
generalS} ; for the theorem just stated can nowbe easily extended as follows:
if (by) is a set of rational
or irrational
numbers with the property that a numberb
~i~oo(bv+J'
by)
.0,
(Whatever
Jl
=
may
be), then there exists such that:
determined by atundamental
series (By),
,",'M b;
'i ;: 00
b.
numbers b, which are defined by them fundamental series of the of ~, are ,also representable in
It also happens that the ~ fundamental series of this kind (av) (l.call ~ order) such that they appear as limits of ways as limits of series order
a variety
damental series. of the first ,
(cf;1 ),
(bv) where every by is defined by a funwith fixed v.
I accordingly call
r=
such a set bv if it has the property, that chosen JA ), I a fundamental series of
!..i... (Oy......,_by) v=CO
=0
(for any arbitrarily
the second order. Simila~ order may be constructed, fundamental series of the third, fourth •••••••••• nth
or even of the 0(  order, where
ex.
is any number
chosen from tQe second numberclass. All these fundamental series achieve for the determination of a real number b exactly that which is achieved by fundamental series of the first order and the difference lies only in the more complicated, more extenNevertheless it seems to me to fix this
dis
ded form of what is presented (des Gegebenseins).
highly proper, in so far as one accepts the third definition, tinction
in a Y~y similar to that adopted by me in another place (Math. Ann. I accordingly make use of the expression: the numerical
Vol. V, p. 123)..
quantity b is given by a fundamental series of the nth or even the {)( order.
.tf ;~:'
123.
It this
is accepted, one gain'
thereby an extraordinarily
easy and intelli
gible phrase with mich to describe in the simplest.and JDlst succinct way the mass (FUne) of manyformed and orten complicated webs of analysis,
and
at the same time achieving a not to be belittled lucidity.
improvement in clarity and
I oppose the doubt expressed by Herr Dedeldnd in the introducNumbers"against these dismotive of introducing new
,', !
I
I
tion to his paper "Continuity and Irrational tinctions; I was not actuated by an ulterior
numbers [570] by these fundamental series
of the second, third
order etc. order

.
!.
,
1 J
>;
Whichcould not be represented by fundamental series of the first but rather
I had in mind only the conceptually different
has appeared clearly
forms of that al
ready given; this
in several passages in my writing. to the remarkable fact
I wish at this point to call attention that through these fundamen~al series and second numberclasses, series in the ordinary
Whoseorders are numbers of the first
all thinkable forms of analysis appearing as
already foWld or still to be found, \'bose order
sense, either
are completely exhausted, in the sense that fundamental series . numbers are numbers of the third rigorously prove at some tuture numberclass do not exist,
as I shall
time.
the usefulness
I shall attempt brieflY to explicate
(Zweckmlssigkeit) of the third definition.
As a symbol that a number b is given by a fundamental series (ey) of any order n or
0(
,I employ the following: .
\)1.
(~v)
rv
b.
with the general
Suppose, for exampleI we have a convergent series term cv' then the necessary and sufficient
'(,.CO
condition for ~onvergence is J
knownto he, that series
kim (<:1+,"'C""'l
c:P
+....
't'
C ..... !")sO for any
u..
Accordingly the
is swmmed,y the formula: b
L. en n.o
o::t
rv (~ Ctl).
"0
124.
for example, all Cv are defined on the basis of fundamental aeries of the order J a similar relation holds for
t\s::O
2 C..
CIO
d>
and the sum ~
bi a fundamentaJ. series of the (k+l) order.
It., C.,
is de
:r
rr
(gedankliche Inhalt) of the theorem SJl1(~
and
J'
For example, suppose the is to be deecrdbed ,
its powers can be thought of as being given by the formulas:
~ ~ l~~ J where, for brevity, we set
)"" L
r: . /. )
(T
1
).2m+4
.2,11\1'1
rv ( Q¥
)
I
v
we have
hsO
J.n ..., :Q v .
(0"
sin
order, and through that relationship the equality of the rational number 1 and the number ,sin' is given!, S~larly the meaning of more complicated formulas as for instance
expre Baed by a fundamental series of the second order,
f (f )
Sill
(f)
""(i!,r (Z:.,)!
( T) JoWl
+1
),
is defined on the basis of a fundamental series of the second
those in the theor,y of thetafunctions can be precisely and relatively simply described"  whereas the reduction of infinite series to those comprised solely of rationalterma with like signs and converging unconditionally, is bound up with the greatest deviousness, which can be avoided, however, by using the'~definition rather than the first,
SO
long as it is not a ques
tion of numerical approximation of infinite sums by rational numbers but one of finding an entirely sharp definition. The ~ definition certainly seems
not to be a useful one with which to define precisely the sums of infinite series which do not converge nonconditionally and in which the order of the terms, positive and negative, is definitely given. Even for nonconditionally
convergent series the determination of the sum even if it is independent of the order of the terms, is only actually possible for some definite order; for such cases, also, one is tempted to prefer the ~ definition to the first.
125 ..
Finally, the possibility is seen of generalizing (Verallgemeinerungsfahigkeit) "
.the third definition to apply to superfinite numbers, while such an extension of thetirst definition ie entirely imgossible; this difference lies simply in numbers the commutative law even for addition
the fact that for supe~finite
is.no longer of genera11Talidity; the first definition is inextricably bound
to
this law, it stands or falls With it.
For all species of numbers for
i;.
i'"
~ .; •I
Which the commutative law of addition holds the first definition, however, except for the cases here pointed out, is entirely adequate ..
[572] The concept of the "continuum" has not only everywhere played animpottant role in the development of the sciences but has always evoked This
the greatest varieties of opinion and has led to tremendous quarrels.
lies perhaps in the tact that the basic idea of this phenomenon has taken on
different content for the various combatants, perhaps because a precise cOmPl$\~ definition
and
ot
this concept had not been bequeathed them, perhaps also,
and thts seems the most probable, the idea had not been thought out by the Greeks whornay have been the first to give attention to it, with the clarity and completeness which would have been necessary to preclude the possibUity. , . of the various opinions of their successors. We see, then, that Leucippus,
I'
De~~citus and Aristotle regarded the continuum as a Compositum, consisting of "partdbue sine fine divisibilibus" but that Epicurus and Lucretius thought of it as constituted of finite things, atoms, out of which grew a great quarrel among the philosophers of whom some followed Aristotle, others Epicurus·; others J remaining aloof from the quarrel claimed With Thomas Aquinas 9) , that the continuum consisted neither of infinitely many nor of a finite number of parts) but of !:2 parts; this last opinion seems to contain less an explanation of the situation than a tacit recognition of the fact that one had not got tQ the
;1
bottom of the matter and that one had better withdraw with dignity from the
:
"
126.
Here we see the origin of the medievalscholastic
,.1'1&1 ..... ""
point of view, of
defenders are found even today, in which the continuum is thought to
an irreducible concept or, as others express it, a pure a priori intuition which is scarc~ly determinable by concepts; evcr.i arithmetical attempt at determination of this ~stery is regarded as a forbidden venture and rejected
with appropriate vigor; timid souls gain the impression that for the IIcontinuumll it is not a question of a mathematically logical concept, hut rather a question of rel~&ious dosma. It· is far from ~ purpose to conjure up anew these controversial
questdons , and, in any case, the narrow frame of my present WJrk offers too
little spa~efor
a detailed discussion of them; I feel merely obliged to devethe continuum with the calm logic (logischnuchtern) which 1
If
... i
I. Ii II,
l'
/.
lop the' id~aof
n~ed and make Use of in the theory of manifolds, briefly and with consideration for the ma~pematical theory of sets.
an easy
i.
This effort has been fundamentally not
orte~; '573] since, among those mB:~hema.ticiansto whose authority I C
.:
should gladly appeal there is not a single one who has studied the continuum in the precise Way Which I here find necessary.
By
assuming as
basic one or several real or complex continuous
quantities (or~ t~ employ what I believe is a better expression, sets of continuous quantitie~  continuirlicher GrOssenmengen ) there has been con
structed in what seems the best way the concept of a singlevalued or manyvalued continuum dependent upon them, that is, the concept of function extended in a variety of directions, and it is in this ~er that the theory
of the socalled analry~c functions arose as well as that of even more general functions with highly remarkable properties (nondifferentiability and the
like); but the independent continuum has been assumed by mathematical writers only in its simplest fonn and no more thorough investigations have been attempted.
~ext J I have to declare that in my opinion to enlist of time {Zeitbegriff)
the conoept
or the perception of time (Zeitanschauung) in any er
planation of the muchmore basic and more general concept of the continuum is not the proper procedurej time is in lI\Y opinion an idea (Vorstellung) clear explication "~4uires the concept of continuity whose
upon which it depends and objectively as a
even with whose aid it (time) cannot be determined either stlbstance or subjectively as the form of an a priori
intution;
it (time) is (H&fsund
merely a concept employable as an aid and t.o express relat.ionships Bezieh\Ulgbegriff),
by vmich the relation
between various motions occuring in Such a thing as an objective or
natu~e and perceived by us are expressible. absolute "t~e' riever occurs in nature therefore
mea"Bli.re
time can not be looked upon as
6£Inot.ionbut rather
this latter
as a measure of time, were it not appeari,ng as it does in intuition pre
for the" fact that in the latter the modest"role as a subjective,
(motion) time itself
necessary form of an a priori
vents the complete and unassailable
success of this procedure, although there
bas been plenty "of occasions since Kant when this has been attempted. In the same way it is my conviction that one can not begin
"dth the socalled
perception form (Anschauungsform) of ~
to gain knowto it can
ledge of the continuum, since space and the structure only attain
attributed
with the help of an already conceptually existent
continuum that observa
meaning necessary 'for it to become an object not merely of aestbetic tion or philosphic scrutiny
or inexact comparisons, but of careful precise
mathematical investigation. There is therefore nothing left for me to do, except, with
help of the concept of real number as developed in § 9, to try to find a concept of pointcontinuum, purely arithmetical and as general as possible. I space
now make fundamental use [574] of the l'loo<iimens1.Qnal. plane arithmetical Gnt that is, the" assemblage (:in thought) of all
( XI
I Xtl.. .. I X n),
systems of values:
128.
in 'Whioh overy x is kept independent of the other all real values from  00
to + ~
•
Every special system of v~lues of that kind I callan
,
arithmetical
" .,'
point of Gn• pression:
The distance between two such points may be defined by the ex
+ Y(x:"
X,)1.
t()(~  X1)l +  •  _ + (x'"

X~
rt
" I,~I
t .
il\
and by an arithmetical pointset P contained in Gn is meant every orderly, .
\'.
!:;
il
! ;
:,.,
given assemblage of ,points of the space Gn
The problem then becomes to dis
II~':'.
:1'; ,
i, l
,eoter
a sh~p
and at the same time most general definition possible of the eon
l:' :
dit10n~ under which P is to be called a continuum.. ,I proved in Borchardt's Journal, Vol. ?4, p. 242, that all
,~paCEl$ GIl' however great .the socalled dimension number n rNlybe
J
have the
sam~ power:
.',
and Ore therefore of equal power with the linear continuum as well The problem
'
as the t\iu!o~l8.geof aU real numbers of the interval (0••.• _.:1). . .' . . 
qf .,,'
~v~;t.i8a't~
"
'\
and,
.
determining the power of, On accordingly reduces to the
'.'
~.~. ..
Q,W~ . . .' l}l' regard stion
.
to
the interval (0••••••• ,1) .and I hope .to be able ' ..... ~
'.

soon by. a r~goro~~ proof* to show that the power sought is no other than that " ~ .of our second ~finite numberclass (II). Then will follow that all of the
infinite point~sets hav~ either the. power of the fir~t nUlIiberclass(I) or that of the second numberclass (II)~ The further conclusion can be drawn
that the totality of 0.+1 functions of one or several, variables which are representable
by
a prescribed infinite series, in however many different ways, (II) and is therefore
'
has also only the power of the second numberclass
N
countable (abzahlbar) by numbers of the third nuIDbercla~s (III)
10)
• This
;,1
,'I
theorem can also be extended, for example, to the assemblage of all lIanalyticll
""'!
*Translator's Note: C;;:,ntorever' succeeded' in doing this and the problem still n romains unsolved.
129.
fuQctions~
i.~~f o
functions arising
from the analytic
continuation
of conve~
gent powerseries of one or several variables of one or several real variables
or to the set of all functions
by trigonometric
which are representable
series.
In order now to examine more closely the general concept of a contiI?uum lying inside G I recall n given pointset the concept of the deriva.tive P (ll developed in D\V Wl'itings: of any
P J as it
was
first
Math. Ann. Vol.
V, then extended
in Vols.. XV, XVII, XX ana XXI
to the concept of a derrJ'at&,':e
pC,)
[575]
Where
t.· is
first
any integer of the numberclasses
(1) (II) (III)
.
etc.
Pointsets
P may now be divided into two classes according to the
power of their
derivative
pCI}
•
If P (., has the power of (I). it turns a fir5~ in
out as I have alr~ady stated in § 3 of this paper_that there exists teger 0( of t~e first But it p(tJ
be separated
h~$'
or second numberclass (II) J for which pfXJ vanishes ..
tne power of the second nutobe:rclass (II) then pC"~ can always
into tWo sets R and 5, and only p(J):
R +S
in one way, so that:
I
Where Rand Shave extraordinarly
different propertiest
R is of such a nature that b.Y repeatedly taking successive derivatives
tegcr
r
it may be eventually annihilated,
so that there always exists
a first in
of the numberclaas
(I) or (II) for which
R(f.) == 0 ;
such ppintsets R I call reducible. S is of such a nature that continued differentiation produces
But
no change, in that:
, I ;.:,
and accordingly
s=s'rJ)
We can now say: If p~J is of the power
the~ p('J can be separated into a definite
'Ii',
,
illI
',I
,.
such sets I call Eerfect (perfecta). . is.,
at
the .second numberclass (II)
reduoible and a definite
perfect pointset.
Although the two predicates, taneously applicable
"reduciblell
and "perfect" nevertheless
are DOt irreduci
to one and the same pointset,
is not the same as perfect nor is imperfect precisely ,as one with a little care may see. pointsets
the same as reducible
The mrfect
S are in no sense in their
inner structure
always that which I have called in Il\V previous works, mentioned above, lIeverywheredense" )1) (~berall dicht); they consequently are in themselves not adeof a pointcontinuum, even if one J'I!lstgrant at .) must always be perfect sets.
quate for a complete definition once that the latter
(pointcontima
Another concept is muchneeded" in order that,
above concept,
combinedwith the
the continuum may be defined" naJD3ly the concept of a connected
(zusammenhlngenden)pointset
T.
if, for every two of its points,
Wecall T a connected pointset t and tl, for any arbitrarily
small. £
ttl'
tlt2'
,[576) there ,always exists
,
a
finite of
number (Anzahl) of points tl,
.
t2' •••••••••
ways" such that the distances than
. t2 t3' ••••••••••••" tytl are all less
tv
of T, appearing in a variety
E•
All the geometric podnbcontdnua, knownto us fall, as is easily I believe that in these ~
seen, under this concept of connected pointsets; predicates
"perfect!! and IIconnected" I have found the necessary and sufficient (Merkmale) of a pointcontinuum and define accordingly the nPerfect" and "con
characteristics
pointcontinnum inside Gn as a FE:rfectconnected set. 12) nect.ed" are not merely words but are predicates most sharply by the preceding definitions. The Balzano definition tainly incorrectj
of the continuum, characterized
of the continuum (Paradoxes, § 38) is cer
c
~
_
I
it expresses in a onesided fashion just one property of for sets which can. be formed from Gn by pointset (vid. Math. Ann. Vol. XXI,
the continuum which is fulfilled thinking of an "isolated!!

(isolirte)
131.
p. 51) as removed; also for sets Whichconsist of several separated continua,' obviously such cases are not cont1nPre;. although for Bolsano they w>u1dbe. We see here a violation of the theorem: 'lad ossentiam alieujus rei pertinet tollitur;
id" quo dato res necessario ponitur et quo sublato res necessario vel id,
aU. quo res et vice versa quod sine re nee esse nec concipi potest,!! Equally so, in the writings of Herr Dedekind (Continuity and
Irrational
Numbers)a single other property of the continuum seems'to have
been emphasized in a onesided way~that property, namely, which it has in com.on with ~ all nperfectllsets. ~ .
§ ll ..
Wenow proceed to showhow one is lead to the definitions of,the new numbers and howthe natural succession of integers, this explication partitions of the absolutely unending For
which I call the numberclasses, come about.
I shall make use only of previously mentioned theorems on relation to the first. The series (I) has
the secondnumber class and its its basis
of generation in the repented settingdown (Setzung) of fundamental and their finite urrlonj the number v is aooord.ingly number (Anzahl) of such successunii.;
'I i, I,
I ~
unities
regarded as always alike,
the expression not only tor a definite ive settingsdown ties into a whole.
(setzungen), but also tor the union of the established The formation of the finite real integers
I
I
rests then upon
!
the principle
of adjoining a unity to an already present number; I call this which, as we shall soon see, plays,an essential
method (MOment) generation, of
role in the building up of the higher integers, generation.
[577] the first
principle
of
The number (Anzahl) of the numbers v of class emongth6m. Howevercontradictory
(I) is infinite it might be to nothing offen
and there is no greatest speak of n greatest
number of cless
(I)~ there is nevertheless
132.
in thinking
Dl·...i:lg."uu '
of a. new number Which we shall ca11* 6J and Which will be the natural,
for the idea that the "entire assemblage (I) is given in its

succession.
(Just as v is an expression for the idea that a certain is united to form a Whole). It is accordingly
te number (Anzahl) of unities
ICIrIJlI.Li:lD.I..,1 .......
to think of the newly created number CrJ as the limit to mich num(iJ
v approach, if by it nothing else is understood than that . .
ever.y one of the numbers v.
is the ~
which succeeds all numbers v, that is, it is to be regarded as greater
Then if further settingsdown (Setzungen) of
be pennitted to follow this established of generation we have VJ T " W +~ J
W,
VJ
with aid of the
_;
!!!:!!:.
princi!
   , (' ..)1
since by this proce
!!
no grea.test number is reached we then think of a new number which we can 2 tiJ and which shall be the first to succeed all of the al ready imagined principle of genera.tlonto
nUlIIIDE~rs v and UJ + V ; if again we apply the ~
number 26J
, we obtain the sequence:
2.w +1, J.(,J +.11 •    J. CiJ
J
+ ~ ... " .
'!'he logioal
function (logische Funktion) which has produced ..he t different from the first principle of genera
two numbers W· and 2GJ is clearly tion, and I shall call
it the second principle as follows 
of gener~tion of real integers succession of definite
.'and define it more precisely real integers
if 3lV definite exists,
is given for which no greatest second principle
a
new number is crea.ted on
the basis of this the limit
of generation. is.
which is to be thought of as
(Grenze) of those numbers, that
is defined as the next greater
number to all of them.
By continued application
of both principles
of generation,
one
obtains successively
the following further
extensions of our number system:
*Cantor's Note: The symbol CP WhichI used in Number2 of this series of articles (Vol. XVII> p. 357) is hereby replaced from nowon by GV • since the sign ~ has been frequently used as a symbol of indefinite infinities.
3w~ .3w
~.,,
+l~    _.._,
36> ~YI ~

}AW, ,p..GJ "'1,  ... ...'.. . ,
~~ .. ~ ....   
rw
...
+
_
.....
v.  ~.
.

No end is. reached in this process, ,si~ce of the
=rr:'
~
no number is the greatest. The second ,princiPle of generation per,mits us then to intro,d_,~suco~ssor
to all the numbers
fW ...Y
succeed:
,
.
I I
I
which can be called
6J
,to
I,
. I
Which in ~urn new numbers definitelY
I
Aw~ T}'W'"
JA.}4.'"
YJ
and one clea~ly reaches~ by applying the two principles of generation, numbers ~,
~
of the follcpd,ng torm:
"
... , \ 1
"
vow
.1 r. , '" 1', "'"'.
_ _ __
+ Y u , r: I
,I
W
V ....JA" .
I!;
but ~
are forced now b,y the second principle of generation to set up a new. B:ll these and itlich we can appro
number which will. be the next greater after priately denote as:
•
:
~
,
This construction of new numbers as one sees, has no end; by
applying the
two princtples ot generation one continually obtains new numbers
At this
and sequences of numbers, Which have a completely determined succession,
point the likelihood is suggested that by this manner
of constructing is endless
new definite infinite
integers we mst lose ourselves in what
in
(ins Grenzenlose) and that. we,,~
no
position to g:i,.ve this
end
less process a definite mpm~n~arltopping point in order to gain a limitas
tion similar to the one that
in a certain
sense actually
existed
for the earlier
numbers of class (I); there use was made only of the first principle of generation and any emergence from class (I) accordingly impossible. The second number region
principle
of generation must lead us not only beyond the earlier
but it is seen also as an instrument which in union with the ~
principle
134.
of generation gives us the possibility
of bre~
through evety barrier in the
q
formation of the concept of real integers. If we observe that the earlier follow, fulfill nwnbers and those '¥bich imnediately if it is imposed as a restricthird
a certain
condition,
this condition,
tion upon all the numbers still principle, ates,
to be formed, appears as a new additional or lim:i ting .principle
Yihich I shall call a restrictips
and '\'bich oper

.
i
;
;I
as I shall show so that the second numbe~lass
(II) defined ~ its applica!: ,
tion will not only attain a higher power than that of class (I), but indeed the next higher or second power. The suggested condition, so far defined, fulfills, as is easily which everyone of the infinite seen, is numbers

,,
,
that [579] the set of numbers
i
which are predecessors to this number 0\. first numberclaSs (I).
in the sequence is of the power of the
41
I!
!
If we take, for example, the number 6J
, then its pre
ill
··i'
I
'j'
decessors are given b.Y the formula:
\(, (ij'to
V, W,...·f
T •• _ •
+"r.'
VJ ...
Vr )
where
fA I Yo) Vtr·;Vr
are all finite, positive
integers including zero but
excludi.ng the combination Vo: "I. As is !mown, this infinite
=  ..   .    =
V]A ::: O.
set can be expressed in the form of a simple,
series and has accordingly the power of (I).
Since, further,
first
every sequence of sets,
each of which has the
·'1
.";:
'I
power, even if the succession itself
is of the first power, becomes itself
a set of the power of (I),
it is clear that by the extension of our sequence of reached as have the same power of (I),
numbers, only such numbers are actually
so that the suggested condition is in fact fulfilled. Wetherefore define the second numberclass (II) as the assemblago of generation, and
of all numbers fonned by the aid of the two principles UdVo.nc~ / in a ~inite ordered succession: G),W+I,}v'oW 14
t'l.(J
ex.
_J4.'
++Y/AI
~J
(.J
t'vfJ'W
~I
tAl t!
Cl(
_
i
j !' ;.
Ii_I
135.
upon. Which the condition lon,
"a
is imposeda that all the predecessors
of
0<.
,~
set of the power of the numberclass {I).
WenoWproceed to demonstrate the theorem that the new numberclass
(II) has a power, which differs
1
from that of the first
numberclass' (I).
This theorem follows from the following theorem:
"If 0<.. )0(.2.'_ •• ,OJ.'I,
• is any set of various
numbers of the
in
second numberclass and having the power of (I)
(so that we are justified
regarding the nwnbers as a:ranged in. a simple sequence(o<v) ), then either one of the .set is greatest, a definit~ set number say ~ , or, if there is no greatest, there exists
(?>
of the second numberclass (II) not a memberof the is greater than all but that every integer
oc, ,
such that'~
(3' <. ~
y
·c/l.c,:>",,/
VP"'l?"""' . "..........,(.
I
will be surpassed in size (Grriss~) by certain ·.,bers ~ and p,
numbers of the sequence; the num,.03 be called the upper limit
rr>.
I'
of the set
(0<") ."
The proof of this theorem is simply the following: let O(K~ be than number appearing in the series
r
, respectively,
.
can appropriately
'JY"""'
bc'v,,{
the first o<.K3
(<xv)
,which
, etc.
is
greater
ex,
the first
which is greater
1<.
0(
I
KJ.
<
than o{K,t
<. ex.( 2. <
KJ
0(
1<1
< Kli <. <<
0( ~"
[580] We then have
_
..
and
(Xv
<
0( #<.). }
as soon as
V< KA'
Nowit can happen, that from a certain terms in the series number D<Kf
on, all the
{O<v} Which follow
are smaller than this number; then this
number is obviously the largest
of all the terms and we have:
r" 0(,<) •
,
136. r, if we think at the set of all integers
and adjoin
I
."
from lon,
which are smaller
0(.
to this set the set of
.
all 
integers, which ~
and
then the set of all numbers. which ~
ex K l
two numberpower and
obtain a definite classes and further
part of the successive numbers of our first this set of numbers is obviously of the ~ (from the definition
. there exists
accordingly
of (II» a determinate number ~ to all these numbers.
There
, of the assemblage (II), Which is the next greatest
.
fore
~>O(K.>..
and also:
~>.Q(v
, since K" can always be chosen ~ large,
since
~t
that it will be greater
than a preassigned v ~d
O(v
One also easily
sees tha.t every number
<~
< O(K}Io
•
will be surpassed of the theorem
.t
in size by certain are now proven.
numbers C(Kv
; with Which remark all parts
The theorem now follows, second numberclass (II)
that the totality
of all numbers of the for otherwise we
does not have the power of (I);
should be able to think of the entire series:
assemblage (II) in the form of a simple
oc, ) o<..1} exists
  • _) oC. Y
I__
___
,
which according to the theorem just proven either there
has a greatest
tem
!
or
a certain
number
(3
from (II) by Which all the terms <:Xy case the number
be surpassed in size J in the first berclass number ~ (II)
r'",
will
belonging to the num
can not appear among the terms 0( V , in the second case the
belonging to the numberclass both cases contradict therefore
(II) does not appear in the series
(C(~) ;
identical,
the assumption that the sets (II) and
(O(v)
are
the numberclass
(II) has a power different
from the power
of the numberclass
(I).
(I) and (II), the the immediate successor
That of the two powers of the numberclasses second is actually exists
of the first,
that is, that no power
between these two powers, definitely follows from a theorem which I shall
give at once and demonstrate'.
,1',',,""
.'jJ:;'!,"
j ~; :'
'1"'1
II
, ~~ ,iii'
1.37. [581]
If we now look back
:~ i, 'I:'
',!/',"
and review the means Which have led not
1::
.'
!
,:
only to an extension of the concept of real integers but also to the concept
1
:,,1,
of a new power of welldefined
sets" differing from the first power" we see that emerged as distinct principles.
i '~'
II"
!I
i,,\" 1
there were three logical moments (Uomente) ~i~h
They were the two previously defined principles of generation and besides these a restricting or limiting principle ~ich consisted in the requirement that a
new number could be created with help of one of the principles of generation only when the totality of all the preceding numbers had the power of a defined numberclass \'bieh already existed and was complete in its entire range.
In
this way, taking due regard to these three principles, one arrived with .ery great ease and evidence (Evidenz) at ever new numberclasses and one attained all the various, successive" ascending powers appearing in the worl.d of body
Or mind.. The new numbers acquired in this way were throughout of the same
concrete determinacy and objective reality as the earlier ones; I saw no reason
why
we should hesitate in the construction of such new numbersl as soon aait
became evident that for the advancement of the "sciences the introduction of new numberclasses indispensable from the infinity of possible ones, bec~ desirable or even
for our reflections on nature.
"
,
I now come to the promised proof, that the powers of (I)
and (II)
follow each other directly. so that no other powers lie between. If out of the assemblage (II), one selects according to any
law a set (0(
( 0(
I
) of different numbers, 0<
I
,that
is" if one considers any eubse
i,l:
I)
contained in (II), then such a subset displays certain peculiarities '
may be expressed in the following theorems:
UAmong the
il·'
which
numbers of the set (,,() there is always a ~.II if one has a succession of numbers of the which continually diminish in size so that
!lIn particular
assemblage
(II):
ex, ) 0\ 2 J 

,CX{3 •• "",
0(" >'\",91
if (3' >(3 ~
one. 11
138.
then this series necessarily breaks off with a finite the numbers; the series in
.dex*' (Gliederzahl)
and ends with the smallest
at
cannot
be an infinite
It is remarkable that this when the numbers case of infinite which easily
0( ~
theorem ~ich
follows immediately
are finite
integers,
can also be demonstrated for the
numbers
o(p
.'
Actually according to the preceding theorem of the numberclass (II) [582] there is"
follows from the definition "if
amongthe numbers 0< v finite"
dr.y
one considers only those for which the index v is is
>
a least;
O(~""
if this,
for instance"
=
o<~
, it is seen that,
series
o(~
since must consist
, the series
of eX2.ctly
f
O<v
and accordingly the entire finite.
terms and is therefore
Wenow have the following fundamental theorem: "If three cases arise: finite
(d..
I )
is any numberset contained ('
either
Oe J
iri the
.
assemblage (II)"
.
~s a finite
assemblage, that is,
consists
of a class,
number (Anzahl) of numbers, or it
(0<.1)
has the power of the first
or t.hirdly has the power of (II);
quartum non datur.tt let
The proof proceeds simply as follows: ber of the ~
are
n
be the first
I
n~
numberclass (III);
then all
of the numbers <X
of the set
(0<')
smaller than
n
since they are contained in (II).
If now we think of the numbers 0(1 ordered according to size; with r:;I..", as the smallest,O(W+1 the n~ set larger where ~ etc.,
we obtain the set
lot)
in
the form of a. "wellorderedtl naturally
O<f3 '
runs through numbers of our
extended number series
from Won;
I
obviously
(3
always remains sm;l.ller The number ~
0(. )0(2,
or aqual to o(~ and sinceCXj:!o *Trcnslator's Note:
<n
then also
(.3 <.0 .
The index is the subscript
of the 0<.
in the series
139.
cannot th.erefore adYance beyond the numberclass (II), region; three easea can then arise: number of the series either but remains m.thin this
(3
remains less than a determinable is
W
l'
V
I
in Which caee(o..')
a
finite
set; or ~
assumes
all values of the series GJ T V
the series thirdly, through!!! the set
but remains less than a determinable number of
(II), in Which case
{'" assumes arbitrarily
(<Xl)
is obviously ~ set of t~e first
power; or,
great values (II), in which case case the assemblage q.e.d.
(3
runs is,
numbers of (II); in this last
(o<~).~ that
(0(') ,
has obviously the power of (II).
As :imIntediate consequence of the theorem just proven, we have the folloWing: lilt there is given any welldefined class set M of the power of the numberthen the assemblage series, or it
(II) and if any infinite
subset Y' of M is considered,
M' can be thought of either in the form of a simple infinite
possible
and M'
.11
is
that a onetoone,
reciprocal
correspondence can be set up between
M
,
Iii
Ii:
I i I .
"If there is given any welldefined further
set M of the second power, and
a subset},{1 of M and a subset
Mtl
of Mr, and it it is knownthat the set correspondence, then M' is relaI.
M'I is related to 14 in a onetoone, reciprocal
ted in the same way to both M and 14'I ."
1 announce this last theorem at this point because of its [583]
connection with the preceding, under the assumption, that M has the power of (II); obviously it is also true if Y has the power of (I); it seems to be highly ~:
,II'
remarkabl.e and I expressly emphaaize the fact that this theorem has general:: validity, whatever power the set 11mnyhave. in a later I shall comeback to this point interest Which
in more detail
paper and there point out the peculiar
is associated
with this general theorem.
iiil;
,
,
j
i ~;ii
:J'
.
140.
In conclusion I shall make some further
remarks on the numbers
second numberclass and some possible operations with them limi.ing self for the present, however, to ~diate
mw
and obvious considerations,
publioation.
since I
reserve more thorough investigations The operations in gland
for later
of addition and multiplication integers
have been defined law holds also
I have shown that for the infinite
the associative
but that in general the commutative law does for the numbers of the second numberclass. holds in general only in the following fonn:
!l2!:.;
this
holds in particular law.. it
As to the distributive
(0( i" f3 )'
{Where0( + (3, 0(,
:0( ~ of'
(3,
(3
appear as DIll tipliers)
..
as is seen directly
and intuitively.
"
i
If 0( and ~ are
Subtraction
any two integers .. 0(
can be considered in tm way.
< ~ .. one easily
O(+s
sees that the equation:
=(?
permits one and only one solution of
(II) ..
S
S ..where, if 0(
and :(3
are numbers of
is a numberof (I) or (II).
This nUIDber § is set equal to
f3
0(
•
But if on the other hand we consider the following equation:
S~O(:(3
it turns out that this can often not be solved at all for is seen in the equation:
S
,as,
for example,
I I
I
I'I.
,
5
rW
=w+'.
Even in those case s for which the equation: solvable of l: this for
t;
S + 0<. = (3
is of value~ For
,it often happens that it is satisfied
by an infinity
",
; there is alwaysl however, a least number of all these solutions.
root of the equation
least
SrcX (31
S
I';,
j.!
,.l
I.:
141.
':j'j
[584] in case the latter
therefore if
0(
is at all
solvable,. we choose the symbol_fo< , Vlhich
is in general different
frompo< ,
vtlich latter
number always exists
Iill il
i
I' !p
<
\3 •
~fJ further, the following equation holds for three integers
!I
:·1
(where
! is
0<. .
~
the multiplier),
~:SO<
one easily
sees, that the equation:
has no other solution with respect to
by ~:
5
than
5 :~ and this
is indicated
But, on the other hand, it turns out that the equation
.(3 ~ 0( 5
(where ~
is the multiplicand),
if it is solvable at all with respect to ~
of solutions
J
,
often has several and even an infinity least; ·this smallest
solution of the equation: ~:
by:
ex
S ,.
one of v.hich is always the in case the latter has
a solution
at all, we shall.designate
_@.
0<
The numbers 0( of the second numberclass are of two kinds: 1) ,such
ex J
which have an ·immediate predecessor .in the sequence vtlich is
9i
1
0'
such I call numbers of the first predeoessars, for which therefore
1(..)
(;J

kind. ~
2) SUch <X does not exist,
, which have no inmediate
the second kind. kind, but
(}J
The nwnbers GJI J.W1 W + W, Ware,
"t.)
these numbers I call of
for example, of the second kind.
+ '.1
+ W +.2,. fA)
1"
:3
of the first
Prime numbers of the second numberclass which I have defined in g 1, correspondingly first kind. Prime numbers of the second kind are in the order of their appearance amongthe numbers of the second numberclass (II), the following: fall into two classes~ primes of the second and of the
GJ) lJJ
w
I
W
(,J
a
J
(.0
W'
I
•




)
so that among all numbers of the form.:
t = VO 6JJA ... VI W ,..1
1"
_
only.2!!! prime number GJ of the second kind exists; one must not conclude, . . however from this relatively sparse distribution of primes of the second kind, that the assemblage of all of them has a lower power than the numberclass (II) itself; it'turns out that this assemblage has the same power as (II). kind are:
r
[585]
The prime numbers of the first
GJ
2. + I, (,.) + r t
,
W
).t
IJ
_
These are the only primes of the first
just indica.ted by
kind which appear among the numbers
of all primes of the first kind in (II)
<p
;
the totality
has also the power (II). The primes of the second kind have a property Which gives them
an entirely
speci~zed
character:
if ~ is such a prime (of the second kind), than ., ; from Yttich
then always ~ot. ~ it follows, that,
tl '
if
where 0( is any number ~er
0<
and ~
are two numbers, both smaller than ~ , then •
the product O(~ must always be smaller than ~
If we restrict
numberclass,
ourselves next to those numbers of the second
which have the form hold.
f
then the following rules for addition
and multiplication
., = \'0 (,.) .. V, W
...h
Let
JA
f.I
}.'
...  •    
_+
«L
't'
Where we assume that
Yr
}
:=:
<?
0
Vo and
f"
OJ
A
+
~I
oJ
+      _ ~)t. + from zero.
are different
ADDITION
1) If
.fA <
A,
2) If'ft
"> A
pit~t·
,we
have:
...(
we have:
<P
,
+ ~
\1,
I
~
Vo w}'\ ____ + Y
r ~ ,
(,.J
"4'1)
V~ ).. +~"
W
~
r ~, W
}t.~1
+ 2.. W
f
)..2.
+   .  1"
f" .
143.
3) For)A::
,
f+
iT cVoW
In case
"\.i,
A. ,
we have:
A
.
T :(Yotf4»GJ
+flW
,\ .. ,
+·+f.A·
'I
MULTIPLICATION
I
I
I
~,If
1) It' V". differs from zero we have: tA+)' 14+>1 )'''' A· +'1,W ....  +Vt',W tYrrow "'fafIJ
1 
A·o
then the last. term on the right hand side is
oif'" Vr,)o •
.
'f T ': Va W
The factoring
1,.I,
2) It'
J4~).
V,.. = 0 ,
..)..,
we have:
w
+ v,(iJ"" ....  
of a number
1 'r =CoW J4 ...C,W "'", T
where
t
+
'Y'tt l W
'" 1
",.1
:l
~
'f
W
A
•
into its prime factors
is as follows :
given
C,ttv
+   ... CeriA)
!4 f;
and Co, C,) C(j
from zero, we have:
 
[586] are positive finite
f
:Co(GJJAJ4~
I)C, (w 11./4 '+ I)e J
numbers different
C~_, (6).4I..G.'·~:I) C6
prime factors
WJA.6 ;
according to then we have a
if the Co C,)    Cfi_, are factored J the rules for such factoring of
into their
completed factoring
t
of numbers of the first class, into prime factors.
This factoring of numbers
is uniquely deter.mined even ~th abstracts from the commutability
C and if it is agreed, that
respect to the order of the factors,
if one
of the prime factors within the individual
the last
factor shall be a power of
pl.ace,
(iJ
or
equal to unity and that
tv
may only appear in the last
0(
As for a
generalization
(II)
of this factoring of any number
of the second numberclass
into prime factors, I shall consider i~ at a later
opportunity.
144. [587]
APPENDIX
.To § 1 1) Theo;:,,?f ma,a\fo1ds (Jlannichfaltigkeitslehre).
By this
..
phrase I mean a very comprehensive concept which up to now I ha~e attempted to investigate Qf sets. only in the special form of an arithmetic or geometric theory {jedes
By a manifold or set I mean in general
every
multiplicity
Viele) 'which can be thought·of
as a unity (als Eines), that is,
every asse~
blage of determinate elements which can be united into a whole by somelaw and I believe that I have accordingly defined something Which is related the flatonic logue"Philebus the to
'1 )
e' &os
~ that
or ..OED( ., a.s well as With that Vlhich Plato in his dia
I
.
.
on the highest good" calls is, unlimited,
fA' 1(10 ~'.
I
He opposes this to
/;.7filfOV
infinite,
as well as to the
tr2fOl S ~ that
,
indeterminate w'nich I ,call the idea1is, the limit, and explains it as
an ordered "mixture" of. these two.
origin,
That these concepts are of Pythagorean
Plato himself polnts out; compare A. Boeckh, Teachings of Philolaos 1819,. To 2) Aristotle,
the Pythagorean, Berlin,
61.4
of Zeller in his great Second Part Second is
Comparethe presentation
work:
"The Philosophy of the Greeks, Third Edition, Plato's
Abtheilung, pp. 393403. entirely different
point of view in regard to the infinite CompareZeller Second Pert,
from that of Aristotle;
First
Abthei1ung., pp. 62S646.
Also I find certain points of contact with my ideas Compare: P. Zimmennann,Cardinal d. Wiener
in the philosophy of Nicholas of Cuea,
Nicholas of Cusa as the predecessor Akadamie d, Wiss. Jahrg, 1852).
of Leibnitz (Sitzungsberichte
I say the same.In relation
to Giordano Bruno
as the successor of Nicholas of Cusa. Philosophy (Weltanschauung) and destiny
An essential
CompareBrumhofer, Giordano Bruno1s (Verhangniss). however lies Leipzig 1882.
difference
in the fact that I fix
145. conceptually once and for all the various steps (Abstuiungen) of the ideal
l
I
infinite by the numberclasses to be ~
(I), (II), (III) and etc. and then consider it
these superfinite numbers
problem to investigate the relationso!
not only nathematically
all
but to study them and point out their appearance in There is no doubt in Jl6T mind but that in this
possible forms in nature.
~way we mount ever higher, never arriving at any impassible barrier but at the
l same time never
approximately.
reaching any approximate comprehension of the Absolute.
The
Absolute can only be recognized (anerkannt), never known (erkannt), not even For, asinside the first numbe~class (1) for any finite number,
however large, there exists beyond it
a
set of the same power, just so there
follows every superfinite number, however large, another assemblage of numbers of the higher numberclasses (II) or (III) etc. which has lost nothing in power
in respect to that totality of numbers beginning w.t th unity and continuing in an absolutely
infinite succession.
The situation is similar to that Which
Albrecht yon Haller said of eternity, [SSa) "I subtract it (the enormous number) and thou (eternity) liest yet before mell• numbers The absolutely infinite sequenoe of
seems in a certain sense to be·an appropriate symbol of the Absolute; (I), which up to now has alone served
the infinity of the first numberclass
that purpose (symbolizing the Absolute), since I held it as a conceivable idea (~ not Vorstellung), now becomes an utterly vanishing nothing (Nichts) in It seems remarkable to ~ that each of the number
comparison with the others.
classes, therefore each of the powers, corresponds to a completely determined number of the absolutely infinite assemblage also to every superfinite number the
\(tA
of numbers and in such away,
be
that
'f
there is a power which is to
a
; the
V&r10US
.
powers therefore/an
form
(
called This
absolutely infinite series.
is the more remarkable since the number (in case the number that numberclass
which gives the order of a power
l
has an immediate predecessor) stands to the numbers of
which has this power, in a relationship of size whose minutethis the more the larger ( is taken.
ness mocks all attempt at description·and
146.
To § 5 .3) cieterminari possunt. I can not ascribe
in whatever
..
any being (Sein) to
the incieter.minate, variable, idealinfinite since it is presented
for.m it may appear, concepts or pure subbut
either in the for.m of relational or intuitions idea.
jective ideas (Vorstellungen)
in no case as an
II
(Anschauungenimaginationes),
adequate
II
If merely the idealinfinite,
in the theorem
"infinitwn
actu non datur" were meant, I could subscribe to it, although it The meaning of this theorem in the sources disof a con
then becomes a pure tautology.
c~ssed seems rather to be that there is expressed the impossibility ceptual determination theorem as false.
To
of a definite infinite and in this sense I regard the
§7 and realist standpoint ~th respect
4) Realists.
The positivist
to the infinite is expounded for example in:
nUhring., Natural dialectic, Berlin, 124130. . d. Prdne , der uber
pp,
1965, pp, 109135 and in von Kirchmanil, Catechism of philosophy Also compare Ueberwegf s Remarks on Berkeley, Abhondlungen menschlichen Erkenntniss in von Kirchmann's philosophical
.
library.
I can only
repeat that in their evaluation
of the idealinfinite
I am in essential agree
ment with all these authors; the point of difference lies only in the fact that for them this syncategorematic infinite is regarded as the only infinite attaina
ble by "tl\ckingsll (Wendungen) or concepts and here especially only through re,. lational concepts. The proofs of Duhring against the actualinfinite could be demonstrated with fewer words and seems to run in either the direction of saying
that a definite finite number, however large one may think of it as being, can never be an infinite ono, vmich follows directly from its concept, or in the direction of sa.ying thnt the variable ..unlimited, large finite number can hot be
thought of as associated with the predicate determinate and therefore not with the predicate ity. of being, which again follows directly from the nature of varlabil
That in this not the lea.st argument is ndvanced against the conceptual
147.
possibility of definite superfinite numbers is not to be doubted, and yet these proofs are held to be proofs against the reality of superfinit~ numbers. This
way of arguing is similar to the one in which it is said that since there are countless many intensities of green, one concludes (589) that there can be no red. It is certainly remarkable that nUhring on pagel26 of his Work himself
admits that for the explanation of "the possibility of unlimited synthesis" a basis must exist which he calls I1fully unknowable in a conceptual wayll (,rbegreiflicher Weise v;Uig tradiction. Equally so we find those thinkers who are close to idealism or who even pay full homage to it, denying any justification for definiteinfinite numbers. Chr. S'igwart in his outstanding work: Die Methodenlehre Logic
I
unbekarmt,"},
In this, it seems to me lies a con
Second. Volume
J
• • (Tubingen 1872) argues as does Duhring and says on page 47:
Similar ideas are found in Kant and J", F. Fries; compare the
"an infinite number is a contradictio in adjecto."
latter's System der Metapbysik philosophers of the Hegelian
(Heidelberg 1824) in S 51 and II 52.
Also the
school vdll not allow the actualinfinite; .1 refer
to the valuable work of K. Fischer~ System der logik und Metaphysik oder Wissenschaftslehre, Second Edition (Heidelberg 1865) page 275. To § 8
5) What I here call intrasubjective
or immanent reality of con
cepts or ideas may be designated as lIadequatell using the word in the sense of Spinoza when he says (Ethics, Part II, Definition IV): "Per ideam adaequatam
intelligo ideam, quae, quatenus in se sine relatione ad objectum consideratur, omnes verae ideae proprietates sive denominationes intrinsecas habetl1.
6) This conviction is in essential agreement not only with the
Platonic system, but also with a fundamental trend of Spinoza1s system; in the first relationship I recommend Zeller, Philosophy of the Greeks, Third Edition,
l4S.
Second Part, First Abtheilung pp. 541602. the section: He says at the very beg1nningof
"Only conceptual knowledge (Begrifrliche Wissen) assures, accordIn
ing to Plato, a true cognition (Erkenntiss).
so far as truth comes to our
ideas (Vorstellungen)  this assumption Plato shares with others (Parmenides)just so much does renlity come to their objects, and c·onversely. What can be known, ii, what can't be known, is not" and in the same measure as anything is, it is lmowa.ble". As for Spinoza I need only remind you of this passage in the Ethics, Part II, prop. VII: rerum". Also in the Philosophy of Leibnitz the same epistemological principle may be seen. "ordo et connexio idearum idem est ac ordo et connexio
Only since the newer empiricism, sensualism, and scepticism, as
well as the Knntian criticism which accompanied it, has one begun to believe that the source of knowledge and certainty (Gewissheit) is to be found in mind (Sinne) or in the socalled pure fo~ of intuition in the world of ideas (Vorstellungs
welt) and must be limited to these; in D\Y opinion these elements completely fail to afford any such certo.in knowledge since the latter can only be attained by concepts and ideas, and, although stimulated to a high degree by external experienoe in the main is formed through inner induotion and deduction into a some
thing, which in some way was already there and was nerely aroused and brought .into consciousness. ~ § 87, and 98 The procedure for the correct construction of concepts is in my opinion [590J everywhere the same; one sets up a thing (Ding) having no properties, which at first is nothing more than a name or sign A and gives this according to some law, different and even an infinite number of predicates, Whose
meaning is known through ideas already existent which may not contradict one another; in this way the relations of A to concepts already existent is determined; if the process is complete, then all the conditions for awakening the con
149.
cept A (zur Weckung des Begriffes and it emerges into being (Dasein)
is all that
A) Which was slumbering within us; are present
J
equipped with intrasubjective its transient
reaiity,
which
.
I
can be demanded or concepts; to esta.blish of metaphysics. To § 10
meaning
is
then the business
9) Thomas Aquinas, Opuscufa, XLII, de natura
generd.a, chapters
19 and  20; Ltl, de natura loci; .'
XXXII, de natura materiae et de demensionibus
.
intcrminat.is, Compare: C. Jourdin, la Philo sophie de Saint Thomas dtAquin,
p. ,303329; K, Werner, der Heilige Thomas von Aquino (Regensburg, 1859, Volume
21P.
177201. 10) Even the assemblege of nll continuous functions or even
that
of
aU· integrable
functions of one or several variables can have only the
(II); if all the limitntions are dropped and one
power of the second numberclass considers
tl1~ asscmbl.llge of
this
all continuous or discontinuous
junctions of one
or a! several variables
set has the power of the .third numberclass (III).
11) The th~orem'can be proven of perfect sets that they can . never have the power of (I). As an example of n perfect
in no interval whatever, however Small, pointset
which is everywhere dense
consider the assemblage of ill real numCv +_.,.
bers Which are given by the formula:
::t _£.: +~. .... .. ... tJ  '3 ~t
may consist of a finite
12) It is free
3v
....', ..
where the coefficients Cv may be assigned either the volues 0 or 2 and the series as well as an infinite number of terms.
should be observed that this definition of a continuum
from every reference to th~t which is called the dimension of a continualso such continu;. as are solids,
ous. mn.nifold (Gebildes); the definition includes
composed of connected pieces of different dimensions
etc.
ns lines, surfaces,
On a l~ter occassion I shall show how it is possible to proceed in nn
orderly f~shion from this general continuum to the specinl continu~ with definite
150.
dimension.
I
knoW
only ~
well that the word tlo.ontinuumn has previously not
.
had a .precise
'me&rt1hg;
~
fq 'definition will bo judged by some to be too narrow, .
by others as too .__. I trust tha.t I have succee,ded in fiilcl1ng a . proper mean broad; .
..........
.between the two. In lfW definition, by a continuum is meant only a perfect and
. .
connected manifold.
According
to this, for example, a straight line are lacking, or a circular
segment
one or both of whose endpoints
lamina whose bound
ary is excluded, are not completed oontinuua; I call such pointsets tinuua..
In general I understand
semi~con
by a somicontinuum. an impertect,' con
nected pointset
belonging to the secondclass Which is so constituted that every
by a complete continuum Which is itself a part
two points of it can be connecbed
(Bestnndtheil) of the pointset.
So, for instance, is [591] the space designat
ed by me in VolumeXX, p. 119 of the Math. Annalem as
.. Gn by the removal of any pointset
at ..which arises
from
of the first power, a semicontinuum.
4
The deriv~tive ot
in which case it is of no importance
connected pointset is always a continuum,
"Whether t~e connected set has the t:1,.rst or
second power. If a oonnected pointset either is' of the first power it can be called
a
continuum or a semicontinuum, Through the concepts Which
r
have set at the head of the theory all the manifolds of algebraic
of JIlB.n1folds obligate mYself to investigate I as well as transcendental
geometry for all possibilities,
so that the univer
sality and sharpness of the results can not be surpassed by other methods,
Halle, October, 1682
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?