On formally measuring and eliminating extraneous notions in proofs
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) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesZygmunt Vetulani (1987). On Bellert's Proposal Concerning Quantificational Universals. Studia Logica 46 (4):311 - 320.
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).
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads25 ( #50,393 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
