Graduate studies at Western
Synthese 186 (1):315-370 (2012)
|Abstract||While claiming that diagrams can only be admitted as a method of strict proof if the underlying axioms are precisely known and explicitly spelled out, Hilbert praised Minkowski’s Geometry of Numbers and his diagram-based reasoning as a specimen of an arithmetical theory operating “rigorously” with geometrical concepts and signs. In this connection, in the first phase of his foundational views on the axiomatic method, Hilbert also held that diagrams are to be thought of as “drawn formulas”, and formulas as “written diagrams”, thus suggesting that the former encapsulate propositional information which can be extracted and translated into formulas. In the case of Minkowski diagrams, local geometrical axioms were actually being produced, starting with the diagrams, by a process that was both constrained and fostered by the requirement, brought about by the axiomatic method itself, that geometry ought to be made independent of analysis. This paper aims at making a twofold point. On the one hand, it shows that Minkowski’s diagrammatic methods in number theory prompted Hilbert’s axiomatic investigations into the notion of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points, which start from his earlier work focused on the role of the triangle inequality property in the foundations of geometry, and lead up to his formulation of the 1900 Fourth Problem. On the other hand, it purports to make clear how Hilbert’s assessment of Minkowski’s diagram-based reasoning in number theory both raises and illuminates conceptual compatibility concerns that were crucial to his philosophy of mathematics|
|Keywords||Hilbert Minkowski Geometry of numbers Axiomatization Conceptual compatibility Foundations of geometry Hilbert’s fourth problem Convexity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ivahn Smadja (2012). Erratum To: Local Axioms in Disguise: Hilbert on Minkowski Diagrams. Synthese 186 (1):441-442.
Brice Halimi (2012). Diagrams as Sketches. Synthese 186 (1):387-409.
Eric Hammer & Norman Danner (1996). Towards a Model Theory of Diagrams. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (5):463 - 482.
Marco Panza (2012). The Twofold Role of Diagrams in Euclid's Plane Geometry. Synthese 186 (1):55-102.
Kai F. Wehmeier (1997). Aspekte der Frege–Hilbert-Korrespondenz. History and Philosophy of Logic 18 (4):201-209.
Brent Mundy (1986). The Physical Content of Minkowski Geometry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1):25-54.
Ansten Klev (2011). Dedekind and Hilbert on the Foundations of the Deductive Sciences. Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (4):645-681.
Jan Platvono (1997). Formalization of Hilbert's Geometry of Incidence and Parallelism. Synthese 110 (1):127-141.
Jan von Plato (1997). Formalization of Hilbert's Geometry of Incidence and Parallelism. Synthese 110 (1):127-141.
Ari Gross (2012). Pictures and Pedagogy: The Role of Diagrams in Feynman's Early Lectures. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 43 (3):184-194.
Michael Stoeltzner, How Metaphysical is "Deepening the Foundations"? - Hahn and Frank on Hilbert's Axiomatic Method.
C. S. Calude & G. J. Chaitin (1999). Randomness Everywhere. Nature 400:319-320.
Dominique Tournès (2012). Diagrams in the Theory of Differential Equations (Eighteenth to Nineteenth Centuries). Synthese 186 (1):257-288.
Sun-Joo Shin (1994). Peirce and the Logical Status of Diagrams. History and Philosophy of Logic 15 (1):45-68.
Added to index2011-08-09
Total downloads22 ( #62,807 of 739,444 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,444 )
How can I increase my downloads?