Structures and structuralism in contemporary philosophy of mathematics

Synthese 125 (3):341-383 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In recent philosophy of mathematics avariety of writers have presented ``structuralist''views and arguments. There are, however, a number ofsubstantive differences in what their proponents take``structuralism'' to be. In this paper we make explicitthese differences, as well as some underlyingsimilarities and common roots. We thus identifysystematically and in detail, several main variants ofstructuralism, including some not often recognized assuch. As a result the relations between thesevariants, and between the respective problems theyface, become manifest. Throughout our focus is onsemantic and metaphysical issues, including what is orcould be meant by ``structure'' in this connection.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Structure and identity.Stewart Shapiro - 2006 - In Fraser MacBride (ed.), Identity and Modality. Oxford University Press. pp. 34--69.
What structures could not be.Jacob Busch - 2003 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):211 – 225.
Structure in mathematics.Saunders Lane - 1996 - Philosophia Mathematica 4 (2):174-183.
Structuralism and Meta-Mathematics.Simon Friederich - 2010 - Erkenntnis 73 (1):67 - 81.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
231 (#84,276)

6 months
9 (#290,637)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Erich Reck
University of California, Riverside

References found in this work

Science Without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism.Hartry H. Field - 1980 - Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Ontological relativity.W. V. O. Quine - 1968 - Journal of Philosophy 65 (7):185-212.
Parts: A Study in Ontology.Peter Simons - 1987 - Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
What numbers could not be.Paul Benacerraf - 1965 - Philosophical Review 74 (1):47-73.

View all 48 references / Add more references