Online research in philosophy

This paper concerns the role of intuitions in mathematics, where intuitions are meant in the Kantian sense, i.e. the “seeing” of mathematical ideas by means of pictures, diagrams, thought experiments, etc.. The main problem discussed here is whether Platonistic argumentation, according to which some pictures can be considered as proofs (or parts of proofs) of some mathematical facts, is convincing and consistent. As a starting point, I discuss James Robert Brown’s recent book Philosophy of Mathematics, in particular, his primarily examples and analogies. I then consider some alternatives and counterarguments, namely John Norton’s opposite view, that intuitions are just pictorially represented logical arguments and are superfluous; and the Kantian transcendental theory of construction in imagination, as it is developed in the works of Marcus Giaquinto and Michael Friedman. Although I support the claim that some intuitions are essential in mathematical justification, I argue that a Platonistic approach to intuitions is partial and one should go further than a Platonist in explaining how some intuitions can deliver new mathematical knowledge.

In this paper, a game-theoretical semantics is developed for the so-called alpha part of Charles S. Peirce's System of Existential Graphs of 1896. This alpha part is that portion of Peirce's graphs that corresponds to propositional logic. The paper both expounds a game-theoretical semantics for the graphs that seems close to Peirce's own intentions and proves for the alpha part of the graphs that this semantics is adequate.

Book description: This book contains groundbreaking contributions to the philosophical analysis of mathematical practice. Several philosophers of mathematics have recently called for an approach to philosophy of mathematics that pays more attention to mathematical practice. Questions concerning concept-formation, understanding, heuristics, changes in style of reasoning, the role of analogies and diagrams, etc. have become the subject of intense interest. The historians and philosophers in this book agree that there is more to understanding mathematics than a study of its logical structure. How are mathematical objects and concepts generated? How does the process tie up with justification? What role do visual images and diagrams play in mathematical activity? What are the different epistemic virtues (explanatoriness, understanding, visualizability, etc.) which are pursued and cherished by mathematicians in their work? The reader will find here systematic philosophical analyses as well as a wealth of philosophically informed case studies ranging from Babylonian, Greek, and Chinese mathematics to nineteenth century real and complex analysis.

This paper deals primarily with countable, simple, connected graphs and the following two conditions which are trivially satisfied if the graphs are finite: (a) there is an edge-recognition algorithm, i.e., an effective procedure which enables us, given two distinct vertices, to decide whether they are adjacent, (b) there is a shortest path algorithm, i.e., an effective procedure which enables us, given two distinct vertices, to find a minimal path joining them. A graph $G = \langle\eta, \eta\rangle$ with η as set of vertices and η as set of edges is an α-graph if it satisfies (a); it is an ω-graph if it satisfies (b). G is called r.e. (isolic) if the sets ν and η are r.e. (isolated). While every ω-graph is an α-graph, the converse is false, even if G is r.e. or isolic. Several basic properties of finite graphs do not generalize to ω-graphs. For example, an ω-tree with more than one vertex need not have two pendant vertices, but may have only one or none, since it may be a 1-way or 2-way infinite path. Nevertheless, some elementary propositions for finite graphs $G = \langle\nu, \eta\rangle$ with $n = \operatorname{card}(\nu), e = \operatorname{card}(\eta)$ , do generalize to isolic ω-graphs, e.g., n - 1 ≤ e ≤ n(n - 1)/2. Let N and E be the recursive equivalence types of ν and η respectively. Then we have for an isolic α-tree $G = \langle\nu, \eta\rangle: N = E + 1$ iff G is an ω-tree. The theorem that every finite graph has a spanning tree has a natural, effective analogue for ω-graphs. The structural difference between isolic α-graphs and isolic ω-graphs will be illustrated by: (i) every infinite graph is isomorphic to some isolic α-graph; (ii) there is an infinite graph which is not isomorphic to any isolic ω-graph. An isolic α-graph is also called a twilight graph. There are c such graphs, c denoting the cardinality of the continuum.

Since Mathematics really is about what mathematicians do, in this paper, we will look at the mathematical practice of framing , in which an object of interest is viewed in terms of well-understood mathematical structures. The new perspective not only allows to deepen the understanding of e resp. object, it also facilitates new insights. We propose a model for framing in the context of theory graphs, and show how framing can be exploited to enhance the interaction with MKM systems. We use the framing extension of our SACHS system — a semantic help system for MS Excel — as a concrete example.

Many people think that mathematical models are built using well-known “mathematical things” such as numbers and geometry. But since the 19th century, mathematicians have investigated various non-numerical and non-geometrical structures: groups, fields, sets, graphs, algorithms, categories etc. What could be the most general distinguishing feature that would separate mathematical models from non-mathematical ones? I would describe this feature by using such terms as autonomous, isolated, stable, self-contained, and – as a summary – formal. Autonomous and isolated – because mathematical models can be investigated “on their own” in isolation from the modeled objects. And one can do this for many years without any external information flow. Stable – because any modification of a mathematical model is qualified explicitly as defining a new model. No implicit modifications are allowed. Self- contained – because all properties of a mathematical model must be formulated explicitly. The term “formal model” can be used to summarize all these features.

Information protocols (IP's) were developed to describe players who learn their social situation by their experiences. Although IP's look similar to colored multi-graphs (MG's), the two objects are constructed in fundamentally different ways. IP's are constructed using the global concept of history, whereas graphs are constructed using the local concept of edges. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for each theory to be captured by the other. We find that the necessary and sufficient condition for IP theory to be captured by MG theory, which we call SE, excludes relevant game situations. Hence, we conclude that IP theory remains a vital tool and cannot be replaced by MG theory.

This paper describes DIVA (Dynamic Imagery for Visual Analogy), a computational model of visual imagery based on the scene graph, a powerful representational structure widely used in computer graphics. Scene graphs make possible the visual display of complex objects, including the motions of individual objects. Our model combines a semantic-network memory system with computational procedures based on scene graphs. The model can account for people’s ability to produce visual images of moving objects, in particular the ability to use dynamic visual analogies that compare two systems of objects in motion.

Over a decade ago, John Sowa (1984) did the AI community the great service of introducing it to the Existential Graphs of Charles Sanders Peirce. EG is a formalism which lends itself well to the kinds of thing that Conceptual Graphs are aimed at. But it is far more; it is a central element in the mathematical, logical, and philosophical thought of Peirce; this thought is fruitful in ways that are seldom evident when we first encounter it. In one of his major works on Existential Graphs, Peirce remarks that..

In this paper I propose a position in the ontology of mathematics which is inspired mainly by a case study in the mathematical discipline if-theory. The main theses of this position are that mathematical objects are introduced by mathematicians and that after mathematical objects have been introduced, they exist as objectively accessible abstract objects.