David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 2 (4):379-391 (1996)
Here, we analyse some recent applications of set theory to topology and argue that set theory is not only the closed domain where mathematics is usually founded, but also a flexible framework where imperfect intuitions can be precisely formalized and technically elaborated before they possibly migrate toward other branches. This apparently new role is mostly reminiscent of the one played by other external fields like theoretical physics, and we think that it could contribute to revitalize the interest in set theory in the future
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joseph S. Ullian (1969). Is Any Set Theory True? Philosophy of Science 36 (3):271-279.
P. T. Johnstone (1987). Notes on Logic and Set Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Hartley Slater (2003). Aggregate Theory Versus Set Theory. Erkenntnis 59 (2):189 - 202.
F. A. Muller (2001). Sets, Classes, and Categories. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):539-573.
Peter Fletcher (1989). Nonstandard Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 54 (3):1000-1008.
Makmiller Pedroso (2009). On Three Arguments Against Categorical Structuralism. Synthese 170 (1):21 - 31.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #247,771 of 1,096,953 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #273,368 of 1,096,953 )
How can I increase my downloads?