Search results for 'mathematical objects' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Jessica Carter (2013). Handling Mathematical Objects: Representations and Context. Synthese 190 (17):3983-3999.score: 192.0
    This article takes as a starting point the current popular anti realist position, Fictionalism, with the intent to compare it with actual mathematical practice. Fictionalism claims that mathematical statements do purport to be about mathematical objects, and that mathematical statements are not true. Considering these claims in the light of mathematical practice leads to questions about how mathematical objects are handled, and how we prove that certain statements hold. Based on a case (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Barry Smith (1975). Ontogenesis of Mathematical Objects. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 6 (2):91-101.score: 184.0
    Mathematical objects are divided into (1) those which are autonomous, i.e., not dependent for their existence upon mathematicians’ conscious acts, and (2) intentional objects, which are so dependent. Platonist philosophy of mathematics argues that all objects belong to group (1), Brouwer’s intuitionism argues that all belong to group (2). Here we attempt to develop a dualist ontology of mathematics (implicit in the work of, e.g., Hilbert), exploiting the theories of Meinong, Husserl and Ingarden on the relations (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. A. Baker (2003). Does the Existence of Mathematical Objects Make a Difference? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):246 – 264.score: 180.0
    In this paper I examine a strategy which aims to bypass the technicalities of the indispensability debate and to offer a direct route to nominalism. The starting-point for this alternative nominalist strategy is the claim that--according to the platonist picture--the existence of mathematical objects makes no difference to the concrete, physical world. My principal goal is to show that the 'Makes No Difference' (MND) Argument does not succeed in undermining platonism. The basic reason why not is that the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ken Akiba (2000). Indefiniteness of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica 8 (1):26--46.score: 180.0
    The view that mathematical objects are indefinite in nature is presented and defended, hi the first section, Field's argument for fictionalism, given in response to Benacerraf's problem of identification, is closely examined, and it is contended that platonists can solve the problem equally well if they take the view that mathematical objects are indefinite. In the second section, two general arguments against the intelligibility of objectual indefiniteness are shown erroneous, hi the final section, the view is (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Pierre Cassou-Noguès (2005). Gödel and 'the Objective Existence' of Mathematical Objects. History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (3):211-228.score: 180.0
    This paper is a discussion of Gödel's arguments for a Platonistic conception of mathematical objects. I review the arguments that Gödel offers in different papers, and compare them to unpublished material (from Gödel's Nachlass). My claim is that Gödel's later arguments simply intend to establish that mathematical knowledge cannot be accounted for by a reflexive analysis of our mental acts. In other words, there is at the basis of mathematics some data whose constitution cannot be explained by (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Wolfgang Spohn, How Are Mathematical Objects Constituted? A Structuralist Answer.score: 180.0
    The paper proposes to amend structuralism in mathematics by saying what places in a structure and thus mathematical objects are. They are the objects of the canonical system realizing a categorical structure, where that canonical system is a minimal system in a specific essentialistic sense. It would thus be a basic ontological axiom that such a canonical system always exists. This way of conceiving mathematical objects is underscored by a defense of an essentialistic version of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Thomas Forster (forthcoming). Mathematical Objects Arising From Equivalence Relations and Their Implementation in Quine's NF. Philosophia Mathematica:nku005.score: 180.0
    Many mathematical objects arise from equivalence classes and invite implementation as those classes. Set-existence principles that would enable this are incompatible with ZFC's unrestricted aussonderung but there are set theories (e.g., NF and Church's CUS) which admit more instances than does ZF. NF provides equivalence classes for stratified relations only. Church's construction provides equivalence classes for “low” sets, and thus, for example, a set of all (low) ordinals. However, that set has an ordinal in turn which is not (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thomas Forster (2007). Implementing Mathematical Objects in Set Theory. Logique Et Analyse 50 (197):79-86.score: 180.0
    In general little thought is given to the general question of how to implement mathematical objects in set theory. It is clear that—at various times in the past—people have gone to considerable lengths to devise implementations with nice properties. There is a litera- ture on the evolution of the Wiener-Kuratowski ordered pair, and a discussion by Quine of the merits of an ordered-pair implemen- tation that makes every set an ordered pair. The implementation of ordinals as Von Neumann (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Charles Parsons (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge University Press.score: 166.0
    In Mathematical Thought and Its Objects, Charles Parsons examines the notion of object, with the aim to navigate between nominalism, denying that distinctively mathematical objects exist, and forms of Platonism that postulate a transcendent realm of such objects. He introduces the central mathematical notion of structure and defends a version of the structuralist view of mathematical objects, according to which their existence is relative to a structure and they have no more of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Gian-Carlo Rota, David H. Sharp & Robert Sokolowski (1988). Syntax, Semantics, and the Problem of the Identity of Mathematical Objects. Philosophy of Science 55 (3):376-386.score: 164.0
    A plurality of axiomatic systems can be interpreted as referring to one and the same mathematical object. In this paper we examine the relationship between axiomatic systems and their models, the relationships among the various axiomatic systems that refer to the same model, and the role of an intelligent user of an axiomatic system. We ask whether these relationships and this role can themselves be formalized.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Øystein Linnebo (2008). The Nature of Mathematical Objects. In Bonnie Gold & Roger Simons (eds.), Proof and Other Dilemmas: Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematical Association of America. 205--219.score: 158.0
    On the face of it, platonism seems very far removed from the scientific world view that dominates our age. Nevertheless many philosophers and mathematicians believe that modern mathematics requires some form of platonism. The defense of mathematical platonism that is both most direct and has been most influential in the analytic tradition in philosophy derives from the German logician-philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).2 I will therefore refer to it as Frege’s argument. This argument is part of the background of any (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Irina Starikova (2010). Why Do Mathematicians Need Different Ways of Presenting Mathematical Objects? The Case of Cayley Graphs. Topoi 29 (1):41-51.score: 156.0
    This paper investigates the role of pictures in mathematics in the particular case of Cayley graphs—the graphic representations of groups. I shall argue that their principal function in that theory—to provide insight into the abstract structure of groups—is performed employing their visual aspect. I suggest that the application of a visual graph theory in the purely non-visual theory of groups resulted in a new effective approach in which pictures have an essential role. Cayley graphs were initially developed as exact (...) constructions. Therefore, they are legitimate components of the theory (combinatorial and geometric group theory) and the pictures of Cayley graphs are a part of practical mathematical procedures. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Keith J. Devlin (1992). Infons as Mathematical Objects. Minds and Machines 2 (2):185-201.score: 156.0
    I argue that the role played by infons in the kind of mathematical theory of information being developed by several workers affiliated to CSLI is analogous to that of the various number systems in mathematics. In particular, I present a mathematical construction of infons in terms of representations and informational equivalences between them. The main theme of the paper arose from an electronic mail exchange with Pat Hayes of Xeroxparc. The exposition derives from a talk I gave at (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Charles S. Chihara (1982). A Gödelian Thesis Regarding Mathematical Objects: Do They Exist? And Can We Perceive Them? Philosophical Review 91 (2):211-227.score: 154.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. La´Szlo´ E. Szabo´ (2003). Formal Systems as Physical Objects: A Physicalist Account of Mathematical Truth. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (2):117-125.score: 154.0
    This article is a brief formulation of a radical thesis. We start with the formalist doctrine that mathematical objects have no meanings; we have marks and rules governing how these marks can be combined. That's all. Then I go further by arguing that the signs of a formal system of mathematics should be considered as physical objects, and the formal operations as physical processes. The rules of the formal operations are or can be expressed in terms of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Gideon Rosen (2011). The Reality of Mathematical Objects. In John Polkinghorne (ed.), Meaning in Mathematics. Oup Oxford.score: 152.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Charles Parsons (1990). The Structuralist View of Mathematical Objects. Synthese 84 (3):303 - 346.score: 150.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Fraser MacBride (2006). What Constitutes the Numerical Diversity of Mathematical Objects? Analysis 66 (289):63–69.score: 150.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Hartry Field (1993). The Conceptual Contingency of Mathematical Objects. Mind 102 (406):285-299.score: 150.0
  20. Jan Woleński (1998). Mathematical Objects and Mathematical Knowledge. Erkenntnis 48 (1).score: 150.0
  21. Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (1994). A Reductio Ad Surdum? Field on the Contingency of Mathematical Objects. Mind 103 (410):169-184.score: 150.0
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Edward Hussey (1991). Aristotle on Mathematical Objects. Apeiron 24 (4):105 - 133.score: 150.0
  23. Chihara Charles (2006). Burgess's ‘Scientific’ Arguments for the Existence of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):318-337.score: 150.0
    This paper addresses John Burgess's answer to the ‘Benacerraf Problem’: How could we come justifiably to believe anything implying that there are numbers, given that it does not make sense to ascribe location or causal powers to numbers? Burgess responds that we should look at how mathematicians come to accept: There are prime numbers greater than 1010 That, according to Burgess, is how one can come justifiably to believe something implying that there are numbers. This paper investigates what lies behind (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. László E. Szabó (2003). Formal Systems as Physical Objects: A Physicalist Account of Mathematical Truth. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (2):117 – 125.score: 150.0
    This article is a brief formulation of a radical thesis. We start with the formalist doctrine that mathematical objects have no meanings; we have marks and rules governing how these marks can be combined. That's all. Then I go further by arguing that the signs of a formal system of mathematics should be considered as physical objects, and the formal operations as physical processes. The rules of the formal operations are or can be expressed in terms of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. M. A. Rozov (1989). The Mode of Existence of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica (2):105-111.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Kit Fine (2006). Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects. In T. Z. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Clarendon Press. 89--109.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Emily Katz (2013). Aristotle's Critique of Platonist Mathematical Objects: Two Test Cases From Metaphysics M 2. Apeiron 46 (1):26-47.score: 150.0
  28. Roman Murawski (2011). Mathematical Objects and Mathematical Knowledge. Grazer Philosophische Studien 52:257-259.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Charles S. Chihara (2006). Burgess's `Scientific' Arguments for the Existence of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):318-337.score: 150.0
    This paper addresses John Burgess's answer to the ‘Benacerraf Problem’: How could we come justifiably to believe anything implying that there are numbers, given that it does not make sense to ascribe location or causal powers to numbers? Burgess responds that we should look at how mathematicians come to accept: There are prime numbers greater than 1010That, according to Burgess, is how one can come justifiably to believe something implying that there are numbers. This paper investigates what lies behind Burgess's (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Kit Fine (2005). Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects. In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 1. Oup Oxford. 89.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Gregory Brown (1980). Vera Entia : The Nature of Mathematical Objects in Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (1):23-37.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Keith Hossack (1991). Access to Mathematical Objects. Critica 23 (68):157 - 181.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. David G. Robertson (2004). Chrysippus on Mathematical Objects. Ancient Philosophy 24 (1):169-191.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Jan Woleński (1998). Michael D. Resnik (Ed.), Mathematical Objects and Mathematical Knowledge. Erkenntnis 48 (1):129-131.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Ian Mueller (1986). On Some Academic Theories of Mathematical Objects. Journal of Hellenic Studies 106:111-120.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Roman Murawski (1996). Review of M. D. Resnik (Ed.), Mathematical Objects and Mathematical Knowledge. [REVIEW] Grazer Philosophische Studien 52:257-259.score: 150.0
  37. Alan Baker, Indispensibility and the Multiple Reducibility of Mathematical Objects.score: 150.0
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Patricia Blanchette (2007). 3 Mathematical Objects and Identity. In Michael O'Rourke Corey Washington (ed.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. 73.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Alonzo Church (1975). Review: Joseph Ullian, Bernard Baumrin, Mathematical Objects; Joseph S. Ullian, Is Any Set Theory True? [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 40 (4):593-595.score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Hartry Field (1998). Mathematical Objectivity and Mathematical Objects. In S. Laurence C. MacDonald (ed.), Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics. Basil Blackwell.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. R. Murawski (forthcoming). Michael D. Resnik (Ed.): Mathematical Objects and Mathematical Knowledge. Aldershot/Broockfield, USA/Singapore/Sydney: Dartmouth 1995. [REVIEW] Grazer Philosophische Studien.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Michael Otte (1999). Mathematical Creativity and the Character of Mathematical Objects. Logique Et Analyse 42 (167-168):387-410.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Michael D. ReSNik (1996). On Positing Mathematical Objects. In Matthias Schirn (ed.), Frege: Importance and Legacy. Walter de Gruyter. 13--45.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. M. Trobok (2000). Ante Rem Structuralism (Non-Traditional Platonism, Shapiro's Theory on Mathematical Objects). Filozofski Vestnik 21 (1):81-89.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. B. Vezjak (2000). Aristotle's Mathematical Objects as Th" Intermediates". Filozofski Vestnik 21 (1):27-44.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Uwe Riss (2011). Objects and Processes in Mathematical Practice. Foundations of Science 16 (4):337-351.score: 144.0
    In this paper it is argued that the fundamental difference of the formal and the informal position in the philosophy of mathematics results from the collision of an object and a process centric perspective towards mathematics. This collision can be overcome by means of dialectical analysis, which shows that both perspectives essentially depend on each other. This is illustrated by the example of mathematical proof and its formal and informal nature. A short overview of the employed materialist dialectical approach (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Giuseppe Longo (2007). Mathematical Concepts and Physical Objects. In Luciano Boi, Pierre Kerszberg & Frédéric Patras (eds.), Rediscovering Phenomenology: Phenomenological Essays on Mathematical Beings, Physical Reality, Perception and Consciousness (Phaenomenologica) (English and French Edition). Springer. 195-228.score: 126.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Robert Rynasiewicz, Shane Steinert-Threlkeld & Vivek Suri, Mathematical Existence de-Platonized: Introducing Objects of Supposition in the Arts and Sciences.score: 122.0
    In this paper, we introduce a suppositional view of linguistic practice that ranges over fiction, science, and mathematics. While having similar con- sequences to some other views, in particular Linsky and Zalta’s plenitudinous platonism, the view advocated here both differs fundamentally in approach and accounts for a wider range of phenomena and scientific discourse.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Peter Smith (2009). Critical Notice of C. Parsons, Mathematical Thought and its Objects. [REVIEW] Analysis 69 (3):549-557.score: 122.0
    Needless to say, Charles Parsons’s long awaited book1 is a must-read for anyone with an interest in the philosophy of mathematics. But as Parsons himself says, this has been a very long time in the writing. Its chapters extensively “draw on”, “incorporate material from”, “overlap considerably with”, or “are expanded versions of” papers published over the last twenty-five or so years. What we are reading is thus a multi-layered text with different passages added at different times. And this makes for (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000