David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Non-standard models were introduced by Skolem, first for set theory, then for Peano arithmetic. In the former, Skolem found support for an anti-realist view of absolutely uncountable sets. But in the latter he saw evidence for the impossibility of capturing the intended interpretation by purely deductive methods. In the history of mathematics the concept of a nonstandard model is new. An analysis of some major innovations–the discovery of irrationals, the use of negative and complex numbers, the modern concept of function, and non-Euclidean geometry–reveals them as essentially different from the introduction of non-standard models. Yet, non-Euclidean geometry, which is discussed at some length, is relevant to the present concern; for it raises the issue of intended interpretation. The standard model of natural numbers is the best candidate for an intended interpretation that cannot be captured by a deductive system. Next, I suggest, is the concept of a wellordered set, and then, perhaps, the concept of a constructible set. One may have doubts about a realistic conception of the standard natural numbers, but such doubts cannot gain support from non-standard models. Attempts to utilize non-standard models for an anti-realist position in mathematics, which appeal to meaning-as-use, or to arguments of the kind proposed by Putnam, fail through irrelevance, or lead to incoherence. Robinson’s skepticism, on the other hand, is a coherent position, though one that gives up on providing a detailed philosophical account. The last section enumerates various uses of non-standard models.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Michael Rescorla (2015). The Representational Foundations of Computation. Philosophia Mathematica 23 (3):338-366.
Timothy Bays (2007). More on Putnam's Models: A Reply to Belloti. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 67 (1):119--35.
Jan Woleński (2007). The Cognitive Relation in a Formal Setting. Studia Logica 86 (3):479-497.
Jan Woleński (2007). The Cognitive Relation in a Formal Setting. Studia Logica 86 (3):479 - 497.
Timothy Bays (2007). More on Putnam’s Models: A Reply to Belloti. Erkenntnis 67 (1):119-135.
Similar books and articles
Fredrik Engström (2004). Expansions, Omitting Types, and Standard Systems. Dissertation, Chalmers
M. Krynicki & K. Zdanowski (2005). Theories of Arithmetics in Finite Models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 70 (1):1-28.
Menachem Magidor, Saharon Shelah & Jonathan Stavi (1983). On the Standard Part of Nonstandard Models of Set Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (1):33-38.
Andreas Blass (1981). The Model of Set Theory Generated by Countably Many Generic Reals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 46 (4):732-752.
Stephen Donaho (2002). Standard Quantification Theory in the Analysis of English. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (6):499-526.
Steven C. Leth (1988). Sequences in Countable Nonstandard Models of the Natural Numbers. Studia Logica 47 (3):243 - 263.
Eduardo Alejandro Barrio (2010). Theories of Truth Without Standard Models and Yablo's Sequences. Studia Logica 96 (3):375-391.
John Forge (1982). Towards a Theory of Models In Physical Science. Philosophy Research Archives 8:321-338.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #81,036 of 1,902,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #66,357 of 1,902,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?