, 2002,

Piantadosi et al., 2012, Schaeffer et al., 1964 and Spelke, 2003). For example, Carey (2009) proposed that children construct the natural numbers by (1) learning the ordered list of count words as a set of uninterpreted symbols, then (2) learning the exact meanings of the first three or four count words, mapping the words to representations of 1–4 objects that are attended in parallel, and finally (3) constructing an analogy between the serial ordering of the list of number words and the numerical ordering of the arrays of objects. To address the debate on the origins of exact number concepts, here we focused on one of the fundamental properties of the integers:

the relation of exact numerical equality between sets. We asked whether children understand Osimertinib this relation before they master linguistic or other symbols for exact numbers. As we mentioned above, the set-theoretic definition of exact numbers relies on Hume’s principle: two sets are equal in number if and only if they can be placed in perfect one-to-one correspondence. This definition entails a list of characteristic principles of the relation of numerical equality, derived by analyzing the impact of different types of transformations on two initially equal sets. Following a strategy first put forward by SCH772984 Gelman and Gallistel in their study of counting (Gelman, 1972a and Gelman and Gallistel, 1986), we first articulate three principles and then use them to assess children’s selleckchem understanding of the relation of exact numerical equality. Crucially, our tests

allow for the possibility that children may understand some, but not all, of these principles. (1) The Identity principle: If two sets are equal in number, they remain equal over transformations that do not affect the identity of any member of either set, such as changes in the spatial positions of one set’s members. In the rest of this section, we show that each of these principles is a necessary constituent of the relation of exact equality, and therefore a child could not be granted knowledge of exact equality if he/she did not subscribe to all three principles. To do so, we show that waiving one or the other of these principles still leads to coherent relations between sets, but not necessarily to the relation of exact numerical equality. We also establish the relevance of our principles to cognitive development, as waiving one or more of our three principles enables us to capture the different hypotheses put forward in the literature on children’s number concepts.