|Abstract||One textbook may introduce the real numbers in Cantor’s way, and another in Dedekind’s, and the mathematical community as a whole will be completely indifferent to the choice between the two. This sort of phenomenon was famously called to the attention of philosophers by Paul Benacerraf. It will be argued that structuralism in philosophy of mathematics is a mistake, a generalization of Benacerraf’s observation in the wrong direction, resulting from philosophers’ preoccupation with ontology.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Geoffrey Hellman (2001). Three Varieties of Mathematical Structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (2):184-211.
Audrey Yap (2009). Logical Structuralism and Benacerraf's Problem. Synthese 171 (1).
Christopher Menzel (1990). Structuralism and Conceptual Change in Mathematics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:397 - 401.
John Forge (2002). Reflections on Structuralism and Scientific Explanation. Synthese 130 (1):109 - 121.
Julian C. Cole (2010). Mathematical Structuralism Today. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):689-699.
Added to index2009-04-12
Total downloads57 ( #17,372 of 549,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,270 of 549,671 )
How can I increase my downloads?