Philosophia Mathematica 17 (2):208–219 (2009)
|Abstract||Many mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics believe some proofs contain elements extraneous to what is being proved. In this paper I discuss extraneousness generally, and then consider a specific proposal for measuring extraneousness syntactically. This specific proposal uses Gentzen’s cut-elimination theorem. I argue that the proposal fails, and that we should be skeptical about the usefulness of syntactic extraneousness measures.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Robert Brown (1999). Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures. Routledge.
Zygmunt Vetulani (1987). On Bellert's Proposal Concerning Quantificational Universals. Studia Logica 46 (4):311 - 320.
Don Fallis, What Do Mathematicians Want? Probabilistic Proofs and the Epistemic Goals of Mathematicians.
Uwe Egly (2001). On Different Intuitionistic Calculi and Embeddings From Int to S. Studia Logica 69 (2):249-277.
Edwin Coleman (2009). The Surveyability of Long Proofs. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):27-43.
Kosta Došen (2003). Identity of Proofs Based on Normalization and Generality. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 (4):477-503.
John W. Dawson Jr (2006). Why Do Mathematicians Re-Prove Theorems? Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3).
Jeremy Avigad, Kevin Donnelly, David Gray & Paul Raff, A Formally Verified Proof of the Prime Number Theorem.
George Tourlakis (2010). On the Proof-Theory of Two Formalisations of Modal First-Order Logic. Studia Logica 96 (3):349-373.
Kenny Easwaran (2009). Probabilistic Proofs and Transferability. Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):341-362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #50,393 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?