Number Theory

Conventional wisdom dictates that proofs of mathematical propositions should be treated as necessary, and sufficient, for entailing `significant' mathematical truths only if the proofs are expressed in a---minimally, deemed consistent---formal mathematical theory in terms of: * Axioms/Axiom schemas * Rules of Deduction * Definitions * Lemmas * Theorems * Corollaries. Whilst Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem FLT, which appeals essentially to geometrical properties of real and complex numbers, can be treated as meeting this criteria, it nevertheless leaves two (...) questions unanswered: (i) Why is x^n +y^n = z^n solvable only for n < 3 if x, y, z, n are natural numbers? (ii) What technique might Fermat have used that led him to, even if only briefly, believe he had `a truly marvellous demonstration' of FLT? Prevailing post-Wiles wisdom---leaving (i) essentially unaddressed---dismisses Fermat's claim as a conjecture without a plausible proof of FLT. -/- However, we posit that providing evidence-based answers to both queries is necessary not only for treating FLT as significant, but also for understanding why FLT can be treated as a true arithmetical proposition. We thus argue that proving a theorem formally from explicit, and implicit, premises/axioms using rules of deduction---as currently accepted---is a meaningless game, of little scientific value, in the absence of evidence that has already established---unambiguously---why the premises/axioms and rules of deduction can be treated, and categorically communicated, as pre-formal truths in Marcus Pantsar's sense. Consequently, only evidence-based, pre-formal, truth can entail formal provability; and the formal proof of any significant mathematical theorem cannot entail its pre-formal truth as evidence-based. It can only identify the explicit/implicit premises that have been used to evidence the, already established, pre-formal truth of a mathematical proposition. Hence visualising and understanding the evidence-based, pre-formal, truth of a mathematical proposition is the only raison d'etre for subsequently seeking a formal proof of the proposition within a formal mathematical language (whether first-order or second order set theory, arithmetic, geometry, etc.) By this yardstick Andrew Wiles' proof of FLT fails to meet the required, evidence-based, criteria for entailing a true arithmetical proposition. -/- Moreover, we offer two scenarios as to why/how Fermat could have laconically concluded in his recorded marginal noting that FLT is a true arithmetical proposition---even though he either did not (or could not to his own satisfaction) succeed in cogently evidencing, and recording, why FLT can be treated as an evidence-based, pre-formal, arithmetical truth (presumably without appeal to properties of real and complex numbers). It is primarily such a putative, unrecorded, evidence-based reasoning underlying Fermat's laconic assertion which this investigation seeks to reconstruct; and to justify by appeal to a plausible resolution of some philosophical ambiguities concerning the relation between evidence-based, pre-formal, truth and formal provability. (shrink)

It's currently fashionable to take Putnamian model theoretic worries seriously for mathematics, but not for discussions of ordinary physical objects and the sciences. But I will argue that (under certain mild assumptions) merely securing determinate reference to physical possibility suffices to rule out nonstandard models of our talk of numbers. So anyone who accepts realist reference to physical possibility should not reject reference to the standard model of the natural numbers on Putnamian model theoretic grounds.

This comprehensive historical account concerns that non-void intersection region between Riemann zeta function and entire function theory, with a view towards possible physical applications.

To appear in the Proceedings of Logic Colloquium 2006. (32 pages).

A general mathematical framework, based on countable partitions of Natural Numbers [1], is presented, that allows to provide a Semantics to propositional languages. It has the particularity of allowing both the valuations and the interpretation Sets for the connectives to discriminate complexity of the formulas. This allows different adequacy criteria to be used to assess formulas associated with the same connective, but that differ in their complexity. The presented method can be adapted potentially infinite number of connectives and truth values, (...) therefore, it can be considered a general framework to provide semantics to several of the known logic systems (eg, LC, L3 LP, FDE). The presented semantics allow to converge to different standard semantics if the separation complexity procedure is annulled. Therefore, it can be understood as a framework that allows greater precision (in complexity terms) with respect to formula satisfaction. Naturally, because of how it is built, it can be incorporated into non-deterministic semantics. The presented procedure also allows generating valuations that grant a different truth value to each formula of propositional language. As a positive side effect, our method allows a constructive proof of the equipotence between N and N^n for all Natural n. (shrink)

Arithmetical pluralism is the view that there is not one true arithmetic but rather many apparently conflicting arithmetical theories, each true in its own language. While pluralism has recently attracted considerable interest, it has also faced significant criticism. One powerful objection, which can be extracted from Parsons (2008), appeals to a categoricity result to argue against the possibility of seemingly conflicting true arithmetics. Another salient objection raised by Putnam (1994) and Koellner (2009) draws upon the arithmetization of syntax to argue (...) that arithmetical pluralism is inconsistent with the objectivity of syntax. First, we review these arguments and explain why they ultimately fail. We then offer a novel, more sophisticated argument that avoids the pitfalls of both. Our argument combines strategies from both objections to show that pluralism about arithmetic entails pluralism about syntax. Finally, we explore the viability of pluralism in light of our argument and conclude that a stable pluralist position is coherent. This position allows for the possibility of rival packages of arithmetic and syntax theories, provided that they systematically co‐vary with one another. (shrink)

What should be the "physical interpretation" of Riemann's hypothesis? Can its eventual physical interpretation pioneer a pathway for the proper mathematical proof? Answers to both questions are researched in the framework of ontomathematics inherently involving the unity of physics, mathematics, and philosophy. After that viewpoint, a philosophical method for reinterpreting most fundamental mathematical problems (in particular, the seven "Millennium Problems" of CMI) is suggested. Loosely speaking, it consists in determining the ontomathematical "forest" in which the "tree" of a certain very (...) essential mathematical problem is situated, after which the shortest silogism eventually needing a relevant "Gestalt change" appears to be natural and almost obvious, furthermore rather elementarily provable. One even notices that many (if not all) most fundamental problems of contemporary mathematics appeal to the same "Gestalt change" needing the "Cartesian glasses" to be "put off" and Modernity and its episteme to be abandoned. As for mathematics itself, one can conjecture that many or all of the most fundamental problems are (or at least, are linkable to) Gödel's insoluble statements. Ontomathematics suggests a general framework (also) for resolving many essential mathematical problems by breaking the Cartesian prejudice established by Modernity: then, Riemann's hypothesis can be reformulated in terms of the qubit Hilbert space so that the "zeta function" belongs to it. If one manages to demonstrate this, Riemann's hypothesis is rather easily provable since it refers to the fundamental reducibility of any qubit to a single bit "after measurement". From the newly introduced viewpoint, the zeta function is "physically" continued also at its single pole therefore tracing its interpretation by means of the Noether (1918) first theorem. Its application for proving Riemann's hypothesis is sketched in order to be elaborated in the next, second part of the study. (shrink)

The proper mathematical proof of Riemann's hypothesis (RH) in Hilbert mathematics is suggested. It follows the methodological and philosophical considerations in Part I of the paper. Riemann's zeta function is continued "physically" at its single and simple pole conventionally to be square integrable there (though not being analytical only there) and thus everywhere on the complex plane in order to be interpreted as a wave function (though with a singularity at the pole, and thus generalizing the Hilbert-Polya conjecture's viewpoint). Therefore, (...) is interpreted physically corresponding to ζ(????) some quantum state described by it This allows for applying the Noether (1918) first theorem after its reformulation by means of the newly introduced "nonstandard bijection" meaning the mapping of any mathematical structure and its nonstandard model after the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem. Then, the additive semigroup of its trivial zeros implies for all nontrivial zeros to share the critical line (i.e. proving RH) furthermore reasoning the reciprocity of the former generator "2" and the constant "½" of "Re(s) = ½". That approach for proving RH implies as "byproducts" also: the fundamentally random (GUE) distribution of all nontrivial zeros due to "nonstandard bijection"; the generalization of the axiom of induction to a conservation low as for the set-theoretical "continuation" of arithmetic (thus from the axiom of induction the axiom of infinity); the generalization of the Noether theorem in a few consecutive levels reaching even to set theory and the foundations of mathematics (after Hilbert arithmetic and ontomathematics). An idea for proving Goldbach's conjecture in Hilbert arithmetic (in a forthcoming paper) is reasoned as a corollary from the same approach for proving RH. (shrink)

Topics covered in Discrete Mathematics have become essential tools in many areas of studies in recent years. This is primarily due to the revolution in technology, communications, and cyber security. The book treats major themes in a typical introductory modern Discrete Mathematics course: Propositional and predicate logic, proof techniques, set theory (including Boolean algebra, functions and relations), introduction to number theory, combinatorics and graph theory. An accessible, precise, and comprehensive approach is adopted in the treatment of each topic. The ability (...) of abstract thinking and the art of writing valid arguments are emphasized through detailed proof of (almost) every result. Developing the ability to think abstractly and roguishly is key in any areas of science, information technology and engineering. Every result presented in the book is followed by examples and applications to consolidate its comprehension. The hope is that the reader ends up developing both the abstract reasoning as well as acquiring practical skills. All efforts are made to write the book at a level accessible to first-year students and to present each topic in a way that facilitates self-directed learning. Each chapter starts with basic concepts of the subject at hand and progresses gradually to cover more ground on the subject. Chapters are divided into sections and subsections to facilitate readings. Each section ends with its own carefully chosen set of practice exercises to reenforce comprehension and to challenge and stimulate readers. As an introduction to Discrete Mathematics, the book is written with the smallest set of prerequisites possible. Familiarity with basic mathematical concepts (usually acquired in high school) is sufficient for most chapters. However, some mathematical maturity comes in handy to grasp some harder concepts presented in the book. (shrink)

From the early eighteenth century onward, primacy for the invention of binary numeration and arithmetic was almost universally credited to the German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). Then, in 1922, Frank Vigor Morley (1899–1980) noted that an unpublished manuscript of the English mathematician, astronomer, and alchemist Thomas Harriot (1560–1621) contained the numbers 1 to 8 in binary. Morley’s only comment was that this foray into binary was “certainly prior to the usual dates given for binary numeration”. Almost thirty years later, (...) John William Shirley (1908–1988) published reproductions of two of Harriot’s undated manuscript pages, which, he claimed, showed that Harriot had invented binary numeration “nearly a century before Leibniz’s time”. But while Shirley correctly asserted that Harriot had invented binary numeration, he made no attempt to explain how or when Harriot had done so. Curiously, few since Shirley’s time have attempted to answer these questions, despite their obvious importance. After all, Harriot was, as far as we know, the first to invent binary. Accordingly, answering the how and when questions about Harriot’s invention of binary is the aim of this short paper. (shrink)

One of the general criteria G. H. Hardy identifies and discusses in his famous essay A Mathematician’s Apology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1940) by which a mathematician’s patterns must be judged is seriousness. This article focuses on one of Hardy’s examples of a non-serious theorem, namely that 8712 and 9801 are the only numbers below 10000 which are integral multiples of their reversals, in the sense that 8712 = 4·2178, and 9801 = 9·1089. In the context of a discussion of (...) generality, which he considers an essential quality of seriousness, he explains that there is nothing in this example which “appeals much to a mathematician” and that it is “not capable of any significant generalization.” Interestingly, since the publication of the Apology, more than a dozen papers—including one by the renowned mathematician Neil Sloane—have been published that discuss generalizations of Hardy’s example. By identifying the most important aspect of Hardy’s notion of generality, it is argued that, contrary to the views of several researchers, Hardy’s claim regarding the non-capability of any significant generalization is still tenable. Furthermore, this case study is presented and discussed as an example of the multifaceted nature of mathematical interest. (shrink)

This is a book about infinity, specifically the infinity of numbers and sequences. Amazing properties arise, for instance, some kinds of infinity are argued to be greater than others. Along the way the author will demonstrate how infinity can be made to create beautiful 'art', guided by the development of underlying mathematics. This book will provide a fascinating read for anyone interested in number theory, infinity, math art, and/or generative art, and could be used a valuable supplement to any course (...) on these topics. (shrink)

Lighten up about mathematics! Have fun. If you read this book, you will have to endure bad math puns and jokes and out-of-date pop culture references. You'll learn some really cool mathematics to boot. In the process, you will immerse yourself in living, thinking, and breathing logical reasoning. We like to call this proofs, which to some is a bogey word, but to us it is a boogie word. You will learn how to solve problems, real and imagined. After all, (...) math is a game where, although the rules are pretty much set, we are left to our imaginations to create. Think of this book as blueprints, but you are the architect of what structures you want to build. Make sure you lay a good foundation, for otherwise your buildings might fall down. To help you through this, we guide you to think and plan carefully. Our playground consists of basic math, with a loving emphasis on number theory. We will encounter the known and the unknown. Ancient and modern inquirers left us with elementary-sounding mathematical puzzles that are unsolved to this day. You will learn induction, logic, set theory, arithmetic, and algebra, and you may one day solve one of these puzzles. (shrink)

Models are indispensable tools of scientific inquiry, and one of their main uses is to improve our understanding of the phenomena they represent. How do models accomplish this? And what does this tell us about the nature of understanding? While much recent work has aimed at answering these questions, philosophers' focus has been squarely on models in empirical science. I aim to show that pure mathematics also deserves a seat at the table. I begin by presenting two cases: Cramér’s random (...) model of the prime numbers and the function field model of the integers. These cases show that mathematicians, like empirical scientists, rely on unrealistic models to gain understanding of complex phenomena. They also have important implications for some much-discussed theses about scientific understanding. First, modeling practices in mathematics confirm that one can gain understanding without obtaining an explanation. Second, these cases undermine the popular thesis that unrealistic models confer understanding by imparting counterfactual knowledge. (shrink)

A key question of the ‘maverick’ tradition of the philosophy of mathematical practice is addressed, namely what is mathematical progress. The investigation is based on an article by Penelope Maddy devoted to this topic in which she considers only contributions ‘of some mathematical importance’ as progress. With the help of a case study from contemporary mathematics, more precisely from tropical geometry, a few issues with her proposal are identified. Taking these issues into consideration, an alternative account of ‘mathematical importance’, broadly (...) within the framework of progress Maddy offers, is developed with a special focus on mathematicians’ peer-review practice. (shrink)

Why do mathematics often give several proofs of the same theorem? This is the question raised in this article, introducing the notion of an epistemic ideal and discussing two such ideals, the explanatoriness and purity of proof.

A set D subset of V(G) is a dominating set of a graph G if for all x ϵ V(G)\D, for some y ϵ D such that xy ϵ E(G). A dominating set D subset of V(G) is called a connected dominating set of a graph G if the subgraph <D> induced by D is connected. A connected domination number of G, denoted by γ_c(G), is the minimum cardinality of a connected dominating set D. The triple repetition sequence denoted by (...) {S_n:n ϵ Z+} is a sequence of positive integers which is repeated thrice, i.e., {S_n}={1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3, ...}. In this paper, we construct a combinatorial explicit formula for the triple repetition sequence of connected domination numbers of a triangular grid graph. (shrink)

Une analyse historique du cours d’analyse supérieure donné par Guido Fubini à l’université de Turin en 1916 et entièrement consacré à la théorie des nombres ouvre d’intéressantes perspectives d’étude. L’article retrace une pratique de patrimonialisation collective, au sens où il analyse comment une communauté mathématique liée à un lieu spécifique organisait l’enseignement supérieur au cours d’une année donnée, l’objectif étant d’identifier ce qu’elle jugeait important de préserver et de transmettre par rapport à un certain domaine du savoir, aux ressources disponibles (...) et à une identité construite sur le temps long. (shrink)

Neo-Fregean logicists claim that Hume’s Principle (HP) may be taken as an implicit definition of cardinal number, true simply by fiat. A long-standing problem for neo-Fregean logicism is that HP is not deductively conservative over pure axiomatic second-order logic. This seems to preclude HP from being true by fiat. In this paper, we study Richard Kimberly Heck’s Two-Sorted Frege Arithmetic (2FA), a variation on HP which has been thought to be deductively conservative over second-order logic. We show that it isn’t. (...) In fact, 2FA is not conservative over n-th order logic, for all $n \geq 2$. It follows that in the usual one-sorted setting, HP is not deductively Field-conservative over second- or higher-order logic. (shrink)

The first collection of Leibniz's key writings on the binary system, newly translated, with many previously unpublished in any language. -/- The polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is known for his independent invention of the calculus in 1675. Another major—although less studied—mathematical contribution by Leibniz is his invention of binary arithmetic, the representational basis for today's digital computing. This book offers the first collection of Leibniz's most important writings on the binary system, all newly translated by the authors with many (...) previously unpublished in any language. Taken together, these thirty-two texts tell the story of binary as Leibniz conceived it, from his first youthful writings on the subject to the mature development and publication of the binary system. -/- As befits a scholarly edition, Strickland and Lewis have not only returned to Leibniz's original manuscripts in preparing their translations, but also provided full critical apparatus. In addition to extensive annotations, each text is accompanied by a detailed introductory “headnote” that explains the context and content. Additional mathematical commentaries offer readers deep dives into Leibniz's mathematical thinking. The texts are prefaced by a lengthy and detailed introductory essay, in which Strickland and Lewis trace Leibniz's development of binary, place it in its historical context, and chart its posthumous influence, most notably on shaping our own computer age. (shrink)

It is currently fashionable to take Putnamian model-theoretic worries seriously for mathematics, but not for discussions of ordinary physical objects and the sciences. However, I will argue that (under certain mild assumptions) merely securing determinate reference to physical possibility suffices to rule out the kind of nonstandard interpretations of our number talk Putnam invokes. So, anyone who accepts determinate reference to physical possibility should not reject determinate reference to the natural numbers on Putnamian model-theoretic grounds.

This paper aims to develop an elegant formula for the series of consecutive cubes of natural numbers under alternating signs. In addition, this paper investigates the formula under odd and even number of terms and discuss some important findings.

This paper aims to construct a new formula that generates a generalized version of congruent numbers based on a generalized version of Pythagorean triples. Here, an elliptic curve equation is constructed from the derived generalized version of Pythagorean triples and congruent numbers and gives some new results.

In this paper we introduce a novel way of building arithmetics whose background logic is R. The purpose of doing this is to point in the direction of a novel family of systems that could be candidates for being the infamous R#1/2 that Meyer suggested we look for.

We discuss some basic issues underlying the natural numbers: induction and recursion. We examine recursive formulations and their use in establishing universal and particular properties.

We present a manuscript of Paul Lorenzen that provides a proof of consistency for elementary number theory as an application of the construction of the free countably complete pseudocomplemented semilattice over a preordered set. This manuscript rests in the Oskar-Becker-Nachlass at the Philosophisches Archiv of Universität Konstanz, file OB 5-3b-5. It has probably been written between March and May 1944. We also compare this proof to Gentzen's and Novikov's, and provide a translation of the manuscript.

Gauss’s quadratic reciprocity theorem is among the most important results in the history of number theory. It’s also among the most mysterious: since its discovery in the late 18th century, mathematicians have regarded reciprocity as a deeply surprising fact in need of explanation. Intriguingly, though, there’s little agreement on how the theorem is best explained. Two quite different kinds of proof are most often praised as explanatory: an elementary argument that gives the theorem an intuitive geometric interpretation, due to Gauss (...) and Eisenstein, and a sophisticated proof using algebraic number theory, due to Hilbert. Philosophers have yet to look carefully at such explanatory disagreements in mathematics. I do so here. According to the view I defend, there are two important explanatory virtues—depth and transparency—which different proofs (and other potential explanations) possess to different degrees. Although not mutually exclusive in principle, the packages of features associated with the two stand in some tension with one another, so that very deep explanations are rarely transparent, and vice versa. After developing the theory of depth and transparency and applying it to the case of quadratic reciprocity, I draw some morals about the nature of mathematical explanation. (shrink)

The use of figurate numbers (e. g. in the context of elementary number theory) can be considered a heuristic in the field of problem solving or proving. In this paper, we want to discuss this heuristic from the perspectives of the semiotic theory of Peirce (“diagrammatic reasoning” and “collateral knowledge”) and cognitive psychology (“schema theory” and “Gestalt psychology”). We will make use of several results taken from our research to illustrate first-year students’ problems when dealing with figurate numbers in the (...) context of proving. The considerations taken from both theoretical perspectives will help to partly explain such phenomena. It will be shown that the use of figurate numbers must not be considered to be any kind of help for learners or some way of ‘easy’ mathematics. Working in this representational system has to be learned and practiced as another kind of knowledge is necessary for working with figurate numbers. The named findings also touch upon the concept of ‘proofs that explain’. Finally, we will highlight some implications for teaching and point to a number of demands for future research. (shrink)

Despite the efforts of many individuals, the disciplines of modern physics and number theory have remained largely divorced, in the sense that the experimentally verified theories of quantum physics and gravity are written in the language of linear algebra and advanced calculus, without reference to several established branches of pure mathematics. This absence raises questions as to whether or not pure mathematics has undiscovered application to physical modeling that could have far reaching implications for human scientific understanding. In this paper, (...) we review physical interpretations of number theoretic concepts developed in the twentieth century, in an attempt to help bridge the divide between pure mathematical truth and testable physical theory. Specifically, the relevance of L-functions and modular forms to the physics of quantum and classical physical systems is addressed, with the objective of motivating general interest among physicists in these mathematical concepts. (shrink)

A growing body of research has shown that symbolic number processing relates to individual differences in mathematics. However, it remains unclear which mechanisms of symbolic number processing are crucial—accessing underlying magnitude representation of symbols (i.e., symbol‐magnitude associations), processing relative order of symbols (i.e., symbol‐symbol associations), or processing of symbols per se. To address this question, in this study adult participants performed a dots‐number word matching task—thought to be a measure of symbol‐magnitude associations (numerical magnitude processing)—a numeral‐ordering task that focuses on (...) symbol‐symbol associations (numerical order processing), and a digit‐number word matching task targeting symbolic processing per se. Results showed that both numerical magnitude and order processing were uniquely related to arithmetic achievement, beyond the effects of domain‐general factors (intellectual ability, working memory, inhibitory control, and non‐numerical ordering). Importantly, results were different when a general measure of mathematics achievement was considered. Those mechanisms of symbolic number processing did not contribute to math achievement. Furthermore, a path analysis revealed that numerical magnitude and order processing might draw on a common mechanism. Each process explained a portion of the relation of the other with arithmetic (but not with a general measure of math achievement). These findings are consistent with the notion that adults’ arithmetic skills build upon symbol‐magnitude associations, and they highlight the effects that different math measures have in the study of numerical cognition. (shrink)

Yuri Matiyasevich's theorem states that the set of all Diophantine equations which have a solution in non-negative integers is not recursive. Craig Smoryński's theorem states that the set of all Diophantine equations which have at most finitely many solutions in non-negative integers is not recursively enumerable. Let R be a subring of Q with or without 1. By H_{10}(R), we denote the problem of whether there exists an algorithm which for any given Diophantine equation with integer coefficients, can decide whether (...) or not the equation has a solution in R. We prove that a positive solution to H_{10}(R) implies that the set of all Diophantine equations with a finite number of solutions in R is recursively enumerable. We show the converse implication for every infinite set R \subseteq Q such that there exist computable functions \tau_1,\tau_2:N \to Z which satisfy (\forall n \in N \tau_2(n) \neq 0) \wedge ({\frac{\tau_1(n)}{\tau_2(n)}: n \in N}=R). This implication for R=N guarantees that Smoryński's theorem follows from Matiyasevich's theorem. Harvey Friedman conjectures that the set of all polynomials of several variables with integer coefficients that have a rational solution is not recursive. Harvey Friedman conjectures that the set of all polynomials of several variables with integer coefficients that have only finitely many rational solutions is not recursively enumerable. These conjectures are equivalent by our results for R=Q. (shrink)

The systems of arithmetic discussed in this work are non-elementary theories. In this paper, natural numbers are characterized axiomatically in two di erent ways. We begin by recalling the classical set P of axioms of Peano’s arithmetic of natural numbers proposed in 1889 (including such primitive notions as: set of natural numbers, zero, successor of natural number) and compare it with the set W of axioms of this arithmetic (including the primitive notions like: set of natural numbers and relation of (...) inequality) proposed by Witold Wilkosz, a Polish logician, philosopher and mathematician, in 1932. The axioms W are those of ordered sets without largest element, in which every non-empty set has a least element, and every set bounded from above has a greatest element. We show that P and W are equivalent and also that the systems of arithmetic based on W or on P, are categorical and consistent. There follows a set of intuitive axioms PI of integers arithmetic, modelled on P and proposed by B. Iwanuś, as well as a set of axioms WI of this arithmetic, modelled on the W axioms, PI and WI being also equivalent, categorical and consistent. We also discuss the problem of independence of sets of axioms, which were dealt with earlier. (shrink)

Among the four mathematical treatises that Avicenna takes care to place within his philosophical encyclopaedia, the one he devotes to arithmetic is undoubtedly the most singular. Contrary to the treatise on geometry, which differs little from its Euclidean model, the philosopher takes as his point of departure the treatise of Nicomachus of Gerase, but modifies its spirit to incorporate results from the many disciplines which were dealing with numbers: Euclidean Theory of numbers, Nicomachean Aritmāṭīqī, Indian reckoning, Ḥisāb, Algebra, etc. We (...) would like to show how Avicenna, taking note of the changes in the mathematics of his time and led by a philosophical questioning about the nature of the disciplines, proposes here one of the very few texts that gives to Theory of numbers a synthetic image, gathering the themes of mathematical research for the next centuries. (shrink)

Philosophers of science since Nagel have been interested in the links between intertheoretic reduction and explanation, understanding and other forms of epistemic progress. Although intertheoretic reduction is widely agreed to occur in pure mathematics as well as empirical science, the relationship between reduction and explanation in the mathematical setting has rarely been investigated in a similarly serious way. This paper examines an important particular case: the reduction of arithmetic to set theory. I claim that the reduction is unexplanatory. In defense (...) of this claim, I offer evidence from mathematical practice, and I respond to contrary suggestions due to Steinhart, Maddy, Kitcher and Quine. I then show how, even if set-theoretic reductions are generally not explanatory, set theory can nevertheless serve as a legitimate foundation for mathematics. Finally, some implications of my thesis for philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science are discussed. In particular, I suggest that some reductions in mathematics are probably explanatory, and I propose that differing standards of theory acceptance might account for the apparent lack of unexplanatory reductions in the empirical sciences. (shrink)

Self-reference has played a prominent role in the development of metamathematics in the past century, starting with Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem. Given the nature of this and other results in the area, the informal understanding of self-reference in arithmetic has sufficed so far. Recently, however, it has been argued that for other related issues in metamathematics and philosophical logic a precise notion of self-reference and, more generally, reference is actually required. These notions have been so far elusive and are surrounded (...) by an aura of scepticism that has kept most philosophers away. In this paper I suggest we shouldn’t give up all hope. First, I introduce the reader to these issues. Second, I discuss the conditions a good notion of reference in arithmetic must satisfy. Accordingly, I then introduce adequate notions of reference for the language of first-order arithmetic, which I show to be fruitful for addressing the aforementioned issues in metamathematics. (shrink)

Solutions to word problems are moderated by the semantic alignment of real-world relations with mathematical operations. Categorical relations between entities are aligned with addition, whereas certain functional relations between entities are aligned with division. Similarly, discreteness vs. continuity of quantities is aligned with different formats for rational numbers. These alignments have been found both in textbooks and in the performance of college students in the USA and in South Korea. The current study examined evidence for alignments in Russia. Textbook analyses (...) revealed semantic alignments for arithmetic word problems, but not for rational numbers. Nonetheless, Russian college students showed semantic alignments both for arithmetic operations and for rational numbers. Since Russian students exhibit semantic alignments for rational numbers in the absence of exposure to examples in school, such alignments likely reflect intuitive understanding of mathematical representations of real-world situations. (shrink)

We give an overview of some remarkable connections between symmetric informationally complete measurements and algebraic number theory, in particular, a connection with Hilbert’s 12th problem. The paper is meant to be intelligible to a physicist who has no prior knowledge of either Galois theory or algebraic number theory.

How do we get out knowledge of the natural numbers? Various philosophical accounts exist, but there has been comparatively little attention to psychological data on how the learning process actually takes place. I work through the psychological literature on number acquisition with the aim of characterising the acquisition stages in formal terms. In doing so, I argue that we need a combination of current neologicist accounts and accounts such as that of Parsons. In particular, I argue that we learn the (...) initial segment of the natural numbers on the basis of the Fregean definitions, but do not learn the natural number structure as a whole on the basis of Hume's principle. Therefore, we need to account for some of the consistency of our number concepts with the Dedekind-Peano axioms in other terms. (shrink)

This paper demonstrates that Edmund Husserl’s frequently overlooked 1890 manuscript, “On the Logic of Signs,” when closely investigated, reveals itself to be the hermeneutical touchstone for his seminal 1891 Philosophy of Arithmetic. As the former comprises Husserl’s earliest attempt to account for all of the different kinds of signitive experience, his conclusions there can be directly applied to the latter, which is focused on one particular type of sign; namely, number signs. Husserl’s 1890 descriptions of motivating and replacing signs will (...) be respectively employed to clarify his 1891 understanding of the authentic and inauthentic presentations of numbers via number signs. Moreover, his schematic classification of replacement-signs in Semiotic will illuminate the reasons why he believed the number system to be necessary for the operation of replacing number signs. (shrink)

Despite the importance of Kant's claims about mathematical cognition for his philosophy as a whole and for subsequent philosophy of mathematics, there is still no consensus on his philosophy of arithmetic, and in particular the role he assigns intuition in it. This inquiry sets aside the role of intuition for the nonce to investigate Kant's conception of natural number. Although Kant himself doesn't distinguish between a cardinal and an ordinal conception of number, some of the properties Kant attributes to number (...) can be characterized as cardinal or ordinal. This essay argues that Kant's conception of number includes both cardinal and ordinal elements; it suggests that the cardinal elements provide the basis of a conception of number in general, while the ordinal elements contribute to specifying the exact size of particular collections. In considering these elements, roles for intuition begin to emerge, setting the stage for a reevaluation of the role of intuition in Kant's arithmetic. (shrink)

In 1837, Dirichlet proved that there are infinitely many primes in any arithmetic progression in which the terms do not all share a common factor. Modern presentations of the proof are explicitly higher-order, in that they involve quantifying over and summing over Dirichlet characters, which are certain types of functions. The notion of a character is only implicit in Dirichlet’s original proof, and the subsequent history shows a very gradual transition to the modern mode of presentation. In this essay, we (...) describe an approach to the philosophy of mathematics in which it is an important task to understand the roles of our ontological posits and assess the extent to which they enable us to achieve our mathematical goals. We use the history of Dirichlet’s theorem to understand some of the reasons that functions are treated as ordinary objects in contemporary mathematics, as well as some of the reasons one might want to resist such treatment. We also use these considerations to illuminate the formal treatment of functions and objects in Frege’s logical foundation, and we argue that his philosophical and logical decisions were influenced by many of the same factors. (shrink)

A concise yet rigorous introduction to logic and discrete mathematics. This book features a unique combination of comprehensive coverage of logic with a solid exposition of the most important fields of discrete mathematics, presenting material that has been tested and refined by the authors in university courses taught over more than a decade. The chapters on logic - propositional and first-order - provide a robust toolkit for logical reasoning, emphasizing the conceptual understanding of the language and the semantics of classical (...) logic as well as practical applications through the easy to understand and use deductive systems of Semantic Tableaux and Resolution. The chapters on set theory, number theory, combinatorics and graph theory combine the necessary minimum of theory with numerous examples and selected applications. Written in a clear and reader-friendly style, each section ends with an extensive set of exercises, most of them provided with complete solutions which are available in the accompanying solutions manual. Key Features: Suitable for a variety of courses for students in both Mathematics and Computer Science. Extensive, in-depth coverage of classical logic, combined with a solid exposition of a selection of the most important fields of discrete mathematics Concise, clear and uncluttered presentation with numerous examples. Covers some applications including cryptographic systems, discrete probability and network algorithms. Logic and Discrete Mathematics: A Concise Introduction is aimed mainly at undergraduate courses for students in mathematics and computer science, but the book will also be a valuable resource for graduate modules and for self-study. (shrink)

A new dimension is given to modulo theory by defining MOD planes. In this book, the authors consolidate the entire four quadrant plane into a single quadrant plane defined as the MOD planes. MOD planes can be transformed to infinite plane and vice versa. Several innovative results in this direction are obtained. This paradigm shift will certainly lead to new discoveries.

Studies to neutrosophic graphs happens to be not only innovative and interesting, but gives a new dimension to graph theory. The classic coloring of edge problem happens to give various results. Neutrosophic tree will certainly find lots of applications in data mining when certain levels of indeterminacy is involved in the problem. Several open problems are suggested.